REESE  LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Class 


The 
Confederate  Cause  and  Conduct 


Between  the  States 


As  set  forth  in  the  Reports  of  the 

History  Committee  of  the 

Grand  Camp,  C.  V., 

of  Virginia 


And  Other  Confederate  Papers 


BY 


HUNTER  McGUIRE,  M.  D.,  L.L  D. 

Late" Medical  Director  Jackson's  Corps,  A.  N.  V. 


HON.  GEORGE  L.  CHRISTIAN 

Of  Richmond.  Va. 

" 


With  an  Introduction  by 

REV.    JAMES    POWER    SMITH,    D.  D. 

Last  Survivor  of  the  Staff  of  "Stonewall "  Jackson 


L.  H   JENKINS.  Publisher 
Richmond.  Va. 


es 


CO 


Copyright,  1907 

by 
George  L.  Christian  ancf?StuartlMcGuire 


PREFACE 


The  "  History  Reports  "  contained  in  this  volume  (with  the  ex 
ception  of  the  last  one)  were  prepared  for  the  Grand  Camp  of  Con 
federate  Veterans  of  Virginia,  and  are  republished  just  as  they  were 
submitted  to  that  body. 

When  these  papers  were  severally  read  to  the  Grand  Camp,  they 
were  enthusiastically  received  and  approved,  were  published  in 
many  of  the  newspapers  of  the  country,  and  five  thousand  copies  of 
eack  report  were  directed  to  be  printed  for  general  distribution. 
The  fact  that  this  issue  has  been  exhausted,  coupled  with  the 
further  fact  that  many  letters  have  been  received  from  nearly  every 
section  of  the  country  commending  these  reports,  has  been  deemed 
a  sufficient  reason  to  warrant  their  publication  in  this  more  per 
manent  form. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  some  little  repetition  in  the  last 
report  of  some  of  the  statements  contained  in  some  of  the  others; 
but  it  must  be  remembered  that  this  last  report  was  prepared  for 
the  United  Confederate  Veterans  which  had  already  endorsed  many 
of  the  former  reports  prepared  for  the  Grand  Camp  of  Virginia, 
and  had  directed  that  these  should  be  incorporated  in,  and  form  a 
part  of,  the  history  reports  of  that  great  body  of  Confederate  Vet 
erans. 

The  lecture  on  "  Stonewall "  Jackson  and  the  account  of  the  last 
hours  and  death  of  this  remarkable  man,  prepared  by  his  late 
Medical  Director,  are  such  interesting  contributions  to  history,  and 
have  been  so  favorably  received,  that  no  apology  is  deemed  neces 
sary  for  inserting  them  in  this  volume. 


[in] 


191182 


CONTENTS 


Report  by  Dr.   Hunter  McGuire,  Chairman,         ...          1 
I.   Slavery  not  the  cause  of  the  war. 

II.  Attempt  of  Northern  writers  to  misrepresent  the  South  and  its 
cause. 

III.  The    Northern    cause    will    be     finally   adjudged   the     "Lost 

Cause." 

IV.  Criticism    of  the    writings    of   Mr.   John    Fiske,  and  of    "  Our 

Country,''  by  Cooper,  Estill  and  Lemon. 
V.  All  the  South  asks  that  the  truth  be  stated. 

Report  by  Judge  Geo.   L.  Christian,  Acting  Chairman,  .        33 

I.   The  right  of  secession    established  by   Northern  [testimony. 

II.  The    North  the  aggressor  in  bringing  on   the  war,    established 

by  their  own  testimony. 

Report  by  Judge  Geo.  L.  Christian,  Chairman,      ...        69 
A  contrast  between  the  way  the  war  was  conducted  by  the   Fed 
erals  and  the  way  it  was  conducted   by   the    Confederates, 
drawn  almost  entirely  from  Federal  sources. 

Report  by  Judge  Geo.  L.  Christian,  Chairman,       .          .          .      107 
On  the  treatment  and  exchange  of  prisoners. 

Report  by  Judge  Geo.  L.  Christian,  Chairman,       .         .          .     141 

North  Carolina  and  Virginia  in  the  Civil  War. 

Report  of  the  History  Committee  of  the  U.  C.  V.,  made  to 
the  Reunion  of  Confederate  Veterans,  held  at  Rich 
mond,  Va.,  May  30th-June  3d,  1907,  by  Judge  Geo.  L. 
Christian,  of  Richmond,  Va., 173 

I.  Which  side  was  responsible    for  the    existence  of  the    cause   or 

causes  of  the  war  ? 
II.  Which  side  was  the  aggressor  in  provoking  the  conflict  ? 

III.  Which  side  had  the  legal  right  to  do  what  was  done  ? 

IV.  Which  side  conducted  itself  the  better,    and  according   to    the 

rules  of  civilized  warfare,  pending  the  conflict  ? 

V.  The  relations  of  the  slaves  to  the  Confederate  cause  ? 

[v] 


vi  Contents. 

Stonewall  Jackson — An  Address  by  Hunter  McGuire,  M.  D., 

L.L.D.,  Medical  Director  Jackson's  Corps,  A.  N.  Va.,     191 

At  the  dedication  of  Jackson  Memorial  Hall,  Virginia  Military 
Institute,  and  repeated  before  R.  E.  Lee  Camp,  No.  1, 
C.  V.,  Richmond,  Va.,  July  9th,  1897. 

Account  of  the  Wounding  and  Death  of  Stonewall  Jackson,  by 
Hunter  McGuire,  M.  D.,  L.L.  D.,  Medical  Director 
Jackson's  Corps,  A.  N.  Va.,  .  .  .  .  217 

Published  in  the  Richmond  Medical  Journal  May,  1866. 


INTRODUCTION 


When  the  thin  ranks  of  the  armies  of  the  Southern  Confederacy 
were  at  last  dissolved,  the  survivors  of  the  great  struggle,  who  had 
marched  and  fought  so  long  and  so  well,  went  back  across  untilled 
fields  and  to  impoverished  homes.  Whatever  perils  they  had  faced, 
and  whatever  losses  they  had  suffered,  they  had  not  lost  their  man 
hood,  and  they  had  not  surrendered  their  self-respect  and  honor, 
nor  anything  of  their  faith  in  the  right  and  justice  of  their  cause. 
With  a  heroism  as  true  and  honorable  as  that  displayed  on  many 
fields  of  battle,  they  returned  to  work,  without  capital  and  almost 
without  implements,  some  of  them  crippled  for  life,  and  some  in 
broken  health,  but  unscathed  in  honor  and  uncrippled  in  will. 
They  were  again  to  prove  their  manhood  on  more  difficult  fields; 
to  feed  and  clothe  their  women  and  children,  to  rebuild  their  homes 
and  to  re-establish  government  and  all  the  institutions  of  their 
civilization. 

It  was  not  long  before  these  veterans  began  to  gather  in  Camps, 
and  with  no  other  than  peaceful  purposes.  They  would  cheer  one 
another  in  a  cordial  comradeship.  They  would  remember  their 
fallen  comrades,  and  bury  their  dead,  and  succor  the  old  and 
dependent,  and  care  for  the  widow  and  the  orphan.  There  was  no 
thought  of  continuing  a  useless  and  wasting  strife,  or  of  fanning 
the  fires  of  sectional  animosities. 

Soon  the  pen  began  its  useful  work.  Incident  and  story  were 
narrated.  Memories  of  camp  and  field  were  committed  to  print, 
the  art  preservative.  Volume  after  volume  was  sent  from  the  press 
to  the  library  shelf,  and  into  many  homes.  Materials  of  history 
were  gathered.  The  biographies  of  leaders,  statesmen  and  great 
soldiers,  were  written.  The  President  and  the  Vice-President  of 
the  Confederate  States  gave  to  the  world  and  to  generations  to 
come  the  great  books  which  tell  the  story  of  the  causes  and  purposes 
of  the  Confederacy  and  its  appeal  to  arms.  Histories  were  pub- 

[  vii  1 


viii  Introduction. 

lished  of  the  current  of  events  as  the  war  clouds  gathered  and  then 
as  the  armies  marched  and  joined  in  the  shock  of  battle. 

The  Southern  Historical  Society  in  1876  began  its  invaluable 
series  of  annual  publications.  The  first  volume  was  opened  with 
the  strong  paper  of  the  Hon.  E.  M.  T.  Hunter,  Senator  and  States 
man  ;  thorough,  calm,  vindicating  the  righteousness  of  the  Southern 
cause;  and  it  was  followed  by  the  no  less  convincing  paper  of 
Commodore  Mathew  Fontaine  Maury,  scholar,  scientist  and  Chris 
tian  gentleman.  To  these  were  added  the  vigorous  demonstrations 
made  in  the  books  of  Albert  Taylor  Bledsoe,  and  Eobert  L.  Dabney 
and  J.  L.  M.  Curry,  and  others. 

Valuable  as  was  this  accumulating  literature,  confident  as  the  peo 
ple  of  the  Southland  felt  that  in  the  tribunal  of  history  in  all  com 
ing  years  the  cause,  to  which  like  their  forefathers  they  gave  their 
lives,  their  fortunes  and  their  sacred  honor,  could  not  fail  of  an 
assured  and  enduring  justification ;  there  emerged  as  the  years  went 
by  a  condition  and  a  necessity  which  had  not  been  anticipated. 
"With  utmost  difficulty  the  schools  of  the  South  had  been  re-estab 
lished,  and  seminaries  and  colleges  had  been  re-opened,  in  the 
faithful  effort  to  preserve  the  intelligence  and  character  of  the 
generation  of  sons  and  daughters  rising  up  through  the  land.  It 
was  discovered  with  a  shock  of  pain  and  indignation  that  the  great 
body  of  the  youth  of  the  land  were  being  fed  with  a  literature 
created  by  alien  authors.  Histories,  biographies,  readers,  issued 
by  publishers  whose  one  purpose  was  to  secure  the  great  market 
now  opening  in  every  school  district  far  and  wide  over  the  South, 
were  found  to  be  replete  with  error  and  misrepresentation.  Con 
sciously  or  unconsciously,  the  aims  of  the  people  of  the  South,  and 
of  their  State  governments  were  falsified,  and  the  characters  of  great 
and  good  men  were  belittled  and  defamed.  The  poison  of  unjust 
accusation  was  carried  to  the  minds  of  all  the  children  of  the 
Southland,  and  already  a  generation  was  growing  up  with  concep 
tions  of  the  motives  of  their  fathers,  and  the  causes  of  the  war  be 
tween  the  sections  which  were  not  only  mistaken,  but  altogether 
dishonorable.  The  youth  of  the  whole  South  were  being  stealthily 
robbed  of  an  heritage  glorious  in  itself  and  elevating  and  ennobling 


Introduction.  ix 

to  themselves  and  all  who  came  after  them.  It  was  a  condition 
and  a  process  which  could  not  be  consented  to  for  a  moment. 
There  was  no  surrender  at  Appomattox,  and  no  withdrawal  from 
the  field  which  committed  our  people  and  their  children  to  a  heri 
tage  of  shame  and  dishonor.  No  cowardice  on  any  battlefield  could 
be  as  base  and  shameful  as  the  silent  acquiescence  in  the  scheme 
which  was  teaching  the  children  in  their  homes  and  schools  that 
the  commercial  value  of  slavery  was  the  cause  of  the  war,  that 
prisoners  of  war  held  in  the  South  were  starved  and  treated  with  a 
barbarous  inhumanity,  that  Jefferson  Davis  and  Robert  E.  Lee 
were  traitors  to  their  country  and  false  to  their  oaths,  that  the 
young  men  who  left  everything  to  resist  invasion,  and  climbed  the 
slopes  of  Gettysburg  and  died  willingly  on  a  hundred  fields  were 
rebels  against  a  righteous  government. 

The  State  Camp  of  Virginia  of  Confederate  Veterans  rose 
promptly  and  vigorously  to  resist  another  invasion,  which  would 
have  turned  the  children  against  their  fathers,  covered  the  graves 
of  patriots  and  heroes  with  shame  and  made  the  memory  of  the 
Confederacy  and  its  sacrifices  and  struggles  a  disgrace  in  all  com 
ing  history.  The  camps  throughout  the  South  Iiad  a  new  task 
given  them.  They  were  to  meet  the  threatening  evil  at  the  door  of 
every  school  house  in  the  land.  All  that  was,  or  is  now,  desired  is 
that  error  and  injustice  be  excluded  from  the  text-books  of  the 
schools  and  from  the  literature  brought  into  our  homes;  that  the 
truth  be  told,  without  exaggeration  and  without  omission;  truth 
for  its  own  sake  and  for  the  sake  of  honest  history,  and  that  the 
generations  to  come  after  us  be  not  left  to  bear  the  burden  of  shame 
and  dishonor  unrighteously  laid  upon  the  name  of  their  noble  sires. 

It  was  in  1898  that  the  State  Camp  of  Virginia  made  Dr.  Hunter 
McGuire  the  Chairman  of  its  History  Committee.  Himself  a 
Confederate  Veteran,  the  friend  of  Jackson  and  intimately 
acquainted  with  General  Lee  and  other  leaders  high  in  office  and 
distinguished  in  service,  surgeon,  professor  and  author,  he  was 
eminently  qualified  for  the  work  assigned  him.  With  others  he 
examined  thoroughly  the  histories  introduced  into  the  schools,  and 
in  1899  he  gave  to  the  Commonwealth  and  the  South  the  thorough 


x  Introduction. 

and  able  report  which  is  the  first  paper  of  the  collection  made  in 
this  volume.  It  refutes  the  common  charge  made  against  the  South 
that  the  protection  of  the  money  value  of  slave  property  was  the 
cause  of  the  war  which  the  South  waged  in  its  defence.  It  exposes 
the  misrepresentations  of  Mr.  John  Fiske  and  other  authors,  and 
recommends  that  these  and  such  like  books  be  vigorously  and  uni 
versally  excluded  from  all  schools  and  institutions  of  learning  in 
all  the  States  of  the  South. 

This  work  of  defence  for  the  South,  begun  with  such  ability  by 
Dr.  McGuire,  was  devolved  upon  Judge  George  L.  Christian,  an 
honored  soldier  of  the  Confederacy,  a  lawyer  of  notable  ability  at 
the  Richmond  bar,  and  a  writer  of  clearness,  courage  and  strength. 
Through  seven  years,  from  1900  to  1907,  he  gave  patient  and  faith 
ful  labor  to  painstaking  research  and  most  elaborate  preparation  of 
the  five  papers  which  are  included  in  this  volume.  Beginning  in 
1900  with  the  right  of  secession  as  shown  upon  the  testimony  of 
Northern  Statesmen  and  other  authors,  Judge  Christian  discusses 
in  1901  the  war  as  conducted  by  the  Federal  and  Confederate 
armies,  again  upon  the  testimony  of  Northern  witnesses.  In  1902 
he  reviews  the  treatment  of  prisoners  of  war,  and  the  history  of  the 
exchange  of  prisoners.  In  1907  he  reverts  to  the  serious  question 
of  where  the  responsibility  rested  for  bringing  on  the  sectional 
strife,  with  all  its  loss  of  life  and  wealth  and  all  the  unhappiness 
it  spread  over  the  broad  land.  One  who  went  himself  to  battle  so 
promptly  and  then  suffered  so  much  in  all  the  years  since,  has  had 
the  fidelity  to  truth  and  the  courage  of  heart  to  do  his  duty  in  the 
defence  of  his  people  and  of  the  generations  to  come. 

To  these  official  reports  from  the  History  Committee  of  the 
Grand  Camp  of  Virginia  are  added  two  papers  of  similar  force  and 
value  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  McGuire.  One  is  the  magnificent 
address  on  Stonewall  Jackson,  delivered  at  the  Y.  M.  I.  in  1897, 
an  appreciation  and  study  of  the  character  and  career  of  Jackson 
which  no  one  else  in  the  world  was  so  well  fitted  to  make.  With 
this  also  is  the  paper  of  Dr.  McGuire  on  the  Wounding  and  Death 
of  Stonewall  Jackson,  which  has  preserved  for  all  time  the  story  of 
which  the  author  was  himself  a  part  and  a  witness,  such  a  narrative 


Introduction.  xi 

as  the  great  surgeon  and  friend  could  only  himself  give  to  the 
world. 

The  publication  of  these  papers  had  a  wide-spread  and  powerful 
effect.  They  not  only  caused  the  exclusion  of  certain  books  from 
our  schools  and  colleges,,  and  the  preparation  of  truthful  history 
for  the  use  of  the  young.  They  corrected  the  mistaken  views  of 
many  of  our  own  people,  and  they  went  far  and  wide  in  every  sec 
tion  of  the  land  and  to  other  lands.  In  large  degree  they  have 
produced  a  better  understanding  of  the  great  issues  at  stake,  and 
have  brought  men  of  fair  and  large  minds  to  recognize  the 
fundamental  justice  of  the  cause  of  the  South  and  the  unselfish 
patriotism  and  lofty  devotion  of  the  men  who  filled  the  ranks,  and 
the  high  character  and  great  ability  of  many  who  led  them. 

As  the  large  editions  of  these  papers  have  been  exhausted  and 
their  importance  has  been  yet  more  widely  recognized,  the  demand 
has  risen  for  their  collection  and  republication  in  the  present 
volume.  The  book  now  before  you  is  not  merely  for  preservation 
on  library  shelves,  but  that  being  read,  the  children  and  youths  of 
all  the  country  may  know  that  their  sires  and  grandsires  have  left 
them  examples  of  unselfish  devotion  to  a  righteous  cause  and  a 
heritage  of  imperishable  honor. 

JAMES  POWER  SMITH. 


REPORT 

BY 

DR.  HUNTER  MCGUIRE, 

Chairman. 


OCTOBER  12,  1899. 


I.  Slavery  not  the  Cause  of  the  War. 
II.  Attempts  of  Northern  Writers  to  Misrepre 
sent  the  South  and  its  Cause. 

III.  The  Northern  Cause  will  be  Finally  adjudged 

the  "Lost  Cause." 

IV.  Criticism  of  the  Writings  of  Mr.  John  Fiske, 
and  of  "Our  Country,"  by  Cooper, 

Estill  and  Lemon. 
V.   All  the  South  asks  is  that  THE  TRUTH  be  stated. 


REPORT  OF  OCTOBER  12,  1899. 


Commander  and  Comrades,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

The  work  assigned  to  your  History  Committee  has  been  done 
according  to  our  ability.  The  various  histories  and  geographies 
authorized  to  be  used  in  the  schools  of  the  State  were  assigned  to 
the  several  members  for  examination.  At  a  called  meeting,  held 
in  Eichmond  on  the  5th  of  June,  the  different  reports  were  read 
and  discussed.  They  are  herewith  respectfully  submitted.  They 
are  marked  by  ability  and  conscientious  work,  and  should  have  a 
place  in  your  transactions.  I  read  the  list,  as  follows : 

Freye's  Elements  of  Geography;  Freye's  Complete  Geography — 
John  J.  Williams. 

Cooper,  Estill,  and  Lemon's  "  Our  Country  " — Rev.  S.  Taylor 
Martin. 

Fiske's  History  of  the  United  States — Eev.  Beverly  Tucker  and 
Captain  Carter  R.  Bishop. 

Lee's  Primary  History  of  the  United  States— R.  S.  B.  Smith.. 

Lee's  Brief  History  of  the  United  States — Captain  M.  W.  Hazle- 
wood. 

Lee's  Advanced  History  of  the  United  States — Dr.  R.  A.  Brock. 

Jones'  School  History  of  the  United  States — James  Mann. 

Montgomery's  Beginners'  American  History — T.  H.   Edwards, 

Judson's  Young  American   (civics) — W.  H.  Hurkamp. 

Morris'  Advanced  History  of  the  United  States — John  H.  Hume. 

Myer's  General  History — M.  W.  Hazlewood. 

INDIVIDUAL  PAPERS. 

In  preparing  the  committee's  report,  I  have  felt  at  liberty  to  use 
any  or  all  of  the  individual  papers.  The  committee  appointed  by 
the  general  citizens'  and  soldiers'  meeting,  held  in  Richmond,  Octo 
ber  17,  1898,  made  a  second  report  confirming  and  explaining  the 
report  of  1897.  That  also  is  herewith  submitted.  One  member 

[3] 


4  Official  Reports  of  the 

of  that  committee,  Mr.  John  P.  McGuire,  made  a  special  report  on 
the  whole  subject,  which  has  been  incorporated  in  this  paper. 

It  was  supposed  some  eighteen  months  ago  that  the  History  Com 
mittee  of  the  Grand  Camp  of  Virginia,  successful  in  the  efforts  of 
that  period,  had  finished  its  labors  and  had  no  further  cause  for 
action  nor  reason  for  existence.  We  imagined  that  books  hostile 
to  the  truth  and  dishonoring  to  the  dead  and  living  of  the  South, 
had  been  driven  from  our  State,  and  that  with  them  would  go 
opinions  derived  from  them  and  of  like  effect,  and  therefore  de 
basing  to  those  who  held  them. 

The  actual  situation  is  such  that  we  consider  it  wise  to  begin 
this  report  with  a  brief  description  of  our  position  at  home  and  of 
the  forces  arrayed  against  us.  It  should  serve  to  guide  and  con 
centrate  our  own  action.  It  ought  to  secure  the  vigorous  co-oper 
ation  of  all  the  Confederate  camps  in  the  South. 

WORK  NOT  DONE. 

We  were  in  error  in  supposing  our  work  done.  We  are  not  alto 
gether  rid  of  false  teachings,  whatever  may  be  said  of  the  purposes 
of  our  teachers.  Because  of  newly-aroused  thought,  the  opinions 
alluded  to  are  less  prevalent  than  they  were  at  the  time  we  speak 
of,  but  they  are  still  heard  from  young  men  who,  during  the  last 
thirty  years,  have  been  misled  as  to  the  characteristics  of  our  people 
and  the  causes  of  the  "war  between  the  sections,"  for  some  who, 
"  looking  to  the  future,"  as  they  phrase  it,  foolishly  ignore  the  les 
sons  of  the  past,  and  from  others  who,  thinking  themselves  impov 
erished  by  the  war  and  being  greedy  of  gain,  have  neither  thought 
nor  care  for  anything  nobler.  There  are  a  few  older  men  who 
think  that  the  abandonment  of  all  the  principles  and  convictions 
of  the  past  is  necessary  to  prove  their  loyalty  to  the  present.  There 
are  some  who  dare  to  tell  us  that  "the  old  days  are  gone  by  and 
are  not  to  be  remembered  •"  that  "  it  is  a  weakness  to  recall  them 
with  tender  emotions/'  To  these  we  reply,  "  Put  off  thy  shoes  from 
off  thy  feet,  for  the  place  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground." 
Young  or  old,  these  men  are  few,  but  they  are  ours,  and  their  chil 
dren  inherit  their  errors. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  5 

IGNORANT  TEACHERS. 

Those  not  already  aware  of  it,  will  be  surprised  to  learn  that 
there  are  teachers  in  the  South — high  in  position — but,  as  we 
think,  very  ignorant  of  our  history — who  accept  the  Northern 
theory  that  "  slavery  was  the  cause  of  the  war/'  and  must  accept 
the  dishonoring  consequence  that  its  preservation  was  our  sole  ob 
ject  in  that  struggle — the  favorite  position  of  the  Northern  advo 
cates  and  the  last  support  of  their  cause.  This  position  they  take  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  quarrel  between  the  North  and  the  South 
began  when  slavery  existed  in  all  the  States.  That  writers  or  read 
ers  should  ignore  the  proofs  of  this  is  surprising.  We  cite,  for  in 
stance,  Washington's  stern  order  issued  to  the  army  before  Boston 
in  1775,  promising  summary  punishment  to  any  man  who  should 
say  or  do  anything  to  aggravate  what  he  calls  "the  existing  sec 
tional  feeling."  For  that  feeling  in  that  day  we  cannot  find  cause 
in  slavery,  for  the  good  people  of  New  England  shared  our  South 
ern  guiltiness.  Nor  is  it  to  be  explained  except  as  springing  from 
the  old  jealousy  of  Puritan  and  Cavalier,  and  the  resentment  of  the 
Virginians  against  the  New  Englanders  for  failing  to  help 
them  in  the  Indian  war ;  whence,  according  to  some  authorities,  the 
epithet,  "Yankee"  sprang. 

At  a  later  day  (in  1786)  Mr.  Jay  recommended  to  Congress  that 
in  exchange  for  a  favorable  commercial  treaty  with  Spain  we  should 
yield  to  her  condition  that  "  no  American  vessel  should  navigate 
the  Mississippi  below  the  mouth  of  the  Yazoo,"  New  England — 
caring  nothing  for  the  distant  Mississippi — supported  this  narrow 
and  selfish  policy;  exciting,  say  contemporary  writers,  "the  fierce 
indignation  of  the  South,  and  especially  of  Virginia,  to  which 
State  Kentucky  then  belonged."  We  quote  in  substance  from  Mr. 
Fiske's  "Critical  Period  of  American  History."  He  recites  the 
fact,  but  sees  no  connection  between  the  incident  and  sectional 
war. 

OF    GRAVE  IMPORT. 

So  of  New  England's  pursuit  of  separate  interests  in  1812,  the 
tariff  iniquity  of  1828,  and  the  nullification  struggle;  all  of  which 


6  Official  Reports  of  the 

intensified  the  general  bad  feeling.  These  are  matters  of  common 
est  knowledge  and  of  the  gravest  import.  They  are,,  nevertheless, 
ignored  by  many  Northern  writers  as  causes  of  the  war.  One 
prominent  writer — Mr.  Fiske — very  briefly  mentions  the  Hartford 
Convention  of  1814.  Even  onr  old  enemy,  Mr.  Barnes,  gives  the 
list  in  a  fine  print  note.  The  fact  is,  these  matters  do  not  serve 
the  purpose,  as  none  of  them  could  be  depended  upon  to  enlist  the 
sentimental  sympathy  of  the  world  against  the  South.  Slavery 
and  Southern  action  thereupon  must  be,  for  these  historians,  the 
cause  of  the  war.  There  are  people  at  home  who,  with  these  men, 
ignore  all  this  history  and  accept  and  support  their  view.  We  are 
glad  they  are  few,  but  they  exist;  and,  therefore,  Virginians  do 
not  feel  as  they  did  when,  at  the  touch  of  hostile  spear,  the  shield 
of  the  State  rang  true;  when  at  the  call  of  honor,  the  State  of 
Virginia  stepped  to  the  front,  to  stay  to  the  end  of  the  war.  For 
all  of  us  there  is  cause  to  fear  that  our  success  in  suppressing  the 
more  flagrant  evils  has  lessened  our  watchfulness  against  subtler 
forms  which  may  prove  harder  to  expel ;  reason  to  apprehend  that 
our  people  of  Virginia  and  other  Southern  States  may  sink  down 
into  blind  content  with  a  situation  which  is  still  full  of  danger. 
If  you  will  look  over  the  lists  of  books  allowed  in  some  of  our 
States  you  will  be  amazed.  The  artifices  and  corruption  that  se 
cured  their  adoption  would  furnish  a  curious  subject  for  a  stu 
dent  of  human  nature. 

VIRGINIA'S  HOPE. 

Here  in  Virginia  our  hope  is  in  this  Grand  Camp,  with  its  allies 
among  the  scholars  in  the  State,  and  in  the  men  upon  whom  the 
law  has  laid  the  heavy  responsibility  belonging  to  our  State  Board 
of  Education.  We  are  glad  to  know  that  these  are  good  men  and 
true;  that  they  have  on  the  whole  given  the  public  schools  of  Vir 
ginia  by  far  the  best  set  of  books  they  have  ever  had.  So  we  are 
glad  to  acknowledge  the  good  work  they  have  done  for  the  State, 
however  strongly  we  may  dissent  from  and  protest  against  some 
of  their  conclusions.  With  respect  to  the  situation  abroad,  it  de 
scribes  it  not  unfairly  if  we  say  that  the  reasons  for  the  existence 
of  our  History  Committee  are,  in  a  modified  form,  the  same  that 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  7 

in  1861  brought  into  existence  and  moved  to  action  the  armies  of 
the  South. 

"In  the  Sectional  War"  (not  the  "Civil  War/'  for  that  title 
accords  with  the  extreme  national  conception  and  admits  that  we 
were  not  separate  States)  we  were  called  upon  to  resist  an  inva 
sion  of  soldiers,  armed  and  sent  into  our  country  by  the  concurrent 
purposes  of  several  fairly  distinct  parties  then  and  now  existing  in 
the  North.  They  came  seeking  our  injury  and  their  own  profit. 
A  new  invasion,  with  like  double  purpose,  is  being  prosecuted  by 
the  lineal  successors  of  some  of  these  parties.  Two  of  them  chiefly 
concern  us  and  our  work.  The  one  came —  or  sent  representatives 
to  the  war — bent  upon  the  destruction  of  our  Southern  civilization, 
the  eradication  of  the  personal  characteristics,  opinions,  thought, 
and  mode  of  life  which  made  our  men  different,  antagonists,  and 
hateful  to  them.  The  other  preferred  war  to  the  loss  of  material 
prosperity,  which  they  apprehended  in  case  the  South  should  attain 
a  position  beyond  the  reach  of  Northern  law-makers  and  Northern 
tax-collectors.  Mr.  Lincoln  represented  the  latter,  when,  in  reply 
to  Mr.  John  Baldwin  and  Mr.  A.  H.  H.  Stuart,  who,  as  representa 
tives  of  the  Virginia  Convention,  then  in  session,  urged  him  to 
delay  the  action  that  opened  the  war,  he  asked,  "What  is  to  be 
come  of  my  revenue  in  New  York  if  there  is  a  10  per  cent,  tariff 
at  Charleston  ? "  The  following  incident  points  to  the  former : 
About  the  year  1850  a  distinguished  Northern  statesman  said  to 
a  party  of  Southern  congressmen,  "  You  gentlemen  will  have  to 
go  home  and  beat  your  plow-shares  into  swords  and  your  pruning- 
hooks  into  spears,  for  the  Northern  school-mistresses  are  training 
a  generation  to  fight  the  South." 

AGAINST  TWO  PARTIES. 

No  longer  concerning  ourselves  with  the  sentimental  unionists 
and  honest  abolitionists — whose  work  seems  to  be  over — we  still 
struggle  against  the  two  parties  we  have  described.  These  exist 
in  their  successors  to-day — their  successors  who  strive  to  control 
the  opinions  of  our  people,  and  those  who  seek  to  make  gain  by 
their  association  with  us. 


8  Official  Reports  of  the 

Co-operating  with  these  and  representing  motives  common  to 
them  all,  is  a  new  form  of  another  party,  which  has  existed  since 
sectionalism  had  its  birth;  the  party  which  has  always  labored  to 
convince  the  world  that  the  North  was  altogether  right  and  right 
eous,  and  the  South  wholly  and  wickedly  wrong  in  the  sectional 
strife.  This  party  is  to-day  the  most  distinctly  denned  and  the 
most  dangerous  to  us.  Its  chief  representatives  are  the  historians 
against  whose  work  we  are  especially  engaged.  We  are  enlisted 
against  an  invasion  organized  and  vigorously  prosecuted  by  all  of 
these  people.  They  are  actuated  by  all  the  motives  we  have  de 
scribed;  but  they  have  two  well-defined  (and,  as  to  us,)  malignant 
purposes.  One  of  them  is  to  convince  all  men,  and  especially  our 
Southern  children,  that  we  were,  as  Dr.  Curry  expresses  their  view, 
16  a  brave  and  rash  people,  deluded  by  bad  men,  who  attempted  in 
an  illegal  and  wicked  manner,  to  overthrow  the  Union."  The 
other  purpose — and  for  this  especially  ihej  are  laboring — is  to  have 
it  believed  that  the  Southern  soldier,  however  brave,  was  actuated 
by  no  higher  motive  than  the  desire  to  retain  the  money  value  of 
slave  property.  They  rightly  believe  that  the  world,  once  convinced 
of  this,  will  hold  us  degraded  rather  than  worthy  of  honor,  and  that 
our  children,  instead  of  reverencing  their  fathers,  will  be  secretly,  if 
not  openly,  ashamed. 

They  now  seek  to  carry  out  their  purposes  not  by  the  aid  of 
armed  soldiers,  but  through  the  active  employment  of  energies, 
agencies,  and  agents,  who  are  as  the  caterpillar  and  canker-worm 
for  destructiveness,  and  as  the  locust  for  multitude.  The  whole 
force  of  journalists,  poets,  orators,  and  writers  of  all  classes  is 
employed  in  their  cause,  especially  the  Northern  history-makers, 
whose  books  have  been  and  are  now,  to  some  extent,  in  the  hands 
of  Southern  children. 

LABORED    FOR    EVIL. 

The  character  of  the  work  has  been  in  greater  or  less  degree  such 
as  might  have  been  expected.  By  every  variety  of  effort,  from 
direct  denunciation  to  faint  praise,  by  false  statement  and  more 
subtle  suggestion,  by  sophistry  of  reasoning  and  unexpected  infer 
ence,  by  every  sin  of  omission  and  commission,  these  writers  have 


History  Committee,  Grand  Gamp,  C.  V.  9 

labored  since  the  close  of  the  war,  as  their  predecessors  had  done 
before  it,  to  conceal  or  pervert  the  facts  of  our  history.  In  the 
past  they  have  been  to  a  great  extent  successful.  Up  to  the  war 
our  people  were  as  unknown  as  if  they  had  lived  on  another  planet — 
or  known  only  to  be  condemned.  The  world  has  grown  wiser. 
Therefore,,  these  men,  hopeless  of  retaining  in  the  high  court  of 
the  future  the  packed  juries  and  prejudiced  judges  before  whom 
they  have  heretofore  urged  their  cause  against  us,  gradually  de 
spairing  of  final  success  in  distorting  facts  as  touching  either  the 
legal  aspect  of  the  case  or  our  military  history,  still  retain  the 
hope,  and  now  bend  their  energies  to  the  task,  of  convicting  us  all — 
leaders  and  people — of  such  motives  as  shall  appear  to  the  world, 
and  to  our  children,  as  proof  of  dishonor ;  and  rob  statesmen,  faith 
ful  citizen  and  soldier  alike,  of  the  admiration  now  justly  accorded. 
A  distinguished  writer  has  lately  said  that  "history  as  written, 
if  accepted  in  future  years,  will  consign  the  South  to  infamy." 
He  further  observes  that  "the  conquerors  write  the  histories  of 
all  conquered  peoples."  Whether  or  not  the  records  of  mankind 
show  this  last  statement  to  be  true,  it  is  certainly  not  true  that 
all  conquered  peoples  have  so  learned  the  story  of  their  fathers 
deeds:  nor  can  it  be  shown  that  the  conquerors  have  habitually 
sought  to  force  such  teachings  upon  them.  Wiser  statesmen  have 
known  with  Macaulay,  that  "  a  people  not  proud  of  the  deeds  of 
a  noble  ancestry  will  never  do  anything  worthy  to  be  remembered 
by  posterity."  He  is  a  stupid  educator  who  does  not  know  that 
a  boy  ashamed  of  his  father  will  be  a  base  man.  Such  a  direct 
attempt  to  change  the  character  of  a  people  has  been  almost  un 
known.  It  is  true  that  traces  of  the  Latin  language  show  us 
where  the  Roman  legions  marched.  Norman  French  was  the  court 
language  in  England  after  the  conquest,  and  entered  our  English 
speech.  These  results,  long  resisted  by  patriotic  men,  came  by 
natural  assimilation.  The  relentless  and  remorseless  "man  of 
blood  and  iron  "  did — as  a  last  measure  of  utter  subjugation —  at 
tack  the  minds  of  the  children  of  Alsace  and  Lorraine  through  the 
books  ordered  for  the  schools.  Through  dire  penalties  these  orders 
were  enforced;  in  hopeless  despair  these  provinces  submitted.  The 


10  Official  Reports  of  the 

Prussian  is  not  entirely  alone,  and  doubtless  had  thought  of  re 
tributive  justice  in  mind.  For  the  demon  Corsican,  in  his  day 
of  sweeping  conquest,  compelled  conquered  provinces  to  submit 
to  French  school  laws.  The  most  recent  histoiy  furnishes  one 
more  example.  Under  date  of  June  28,  1899,  we  find  an  order  of 
the  United  States  Provost-Marshal-General  in  Manila  compelling 
the  attendance  of  all  children  between  six  and  twelve  at  the  re 
opened  public  schools  and  ordaining  that  "  one  hour's  instruction 
per  day  shall  be  devoted  to  teaching  the  English  language."  We 
have  not  yet  heard  what  history  of  the  present  war  the  Philipinos 
are  to  study.  It  is  not  exactly  in  point,  but  it  is  interesting  to 
note  that  the  schools  of  Franch  to-day  use  histories  that  teach  the 
children  how  entirely  Frenchmen  won  the  American  War  of  Inde 
pendence.  Doubtless  an  instance  may  be  found  here  and  there  of 
compulsory  study  of  the  history  of  a  conquest  by  the  conquered 
people.  When  occurring  it  has  been  the  conqueror's  final  and  to 
his  mind  most  radical  expedient,  applied  by  and  with  relentless 
force,  and  with  deadly  intent  to  change  the  minds  and  characters 
of  the  new  subjects. 

CRUELEST  CONQUERORS. 

It  remained  for  these,  our  Southern  States,  with  this  State  of 
Virginia  leading  and  guiding  the  others,  (as  we  fear  the  record 
shows)  to  present  the  first  instance  of  voluntary  submission  to 
this  last  resort  of  the  cruelest  conquerors.  The  history  of  the 
human  race  furnishes  no  like  example  of  men  who,  by  their  own 
action,  have  so  exposed  their  children ;  of  men,  who,  unconstrained, 
have  dishonored  the  graves  and  memories  of  their  dead.  Our  own 
people  have  aided  and  are  still  aiding,  with  "  all  the  insistence  of 
damned  and  daily  school-room  iteration,"  in  the  work  of  teach 
ing  those  malignant  falsehoods  to  Southern  children;  in  the  work 
of  so  representing  a  brave  people  to  the  world  of  to-day  and  the 
ages  to  come.  How  amazing  the  folly1  How  dark  the  crime! 

The  folly  of  crime  for  the  State  of  Virginia  is  primarily 
chargeable  to  the  men,  who,  immediately  after  the  war — when  our 
hearts,  if  not  our  intellects,  might  have  been  on  guard — brought 
Northern  men  and  Northern  histories  into  our  schools  and  for 


Histoi*y  Committee ,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  11 

years  employed  them  to  teach  us  why  and  how  Southern  men 
fought  against  the  North.  Certain  honest  efforts  have  been  made 
to  expel  these  books  and  their  teachings.  Differences  of  opinion 
should  not,,  and  do  not,,  induce  us  to  impugn  the  motives  of  faith 
ful  men;  but  we  regret  that  these  efforts  have  not  been  entirely 
successful. 

The  general  views  so  far  expressed  have  been  presented  before. 
The  situation  seemed  to  us  to  require  their  forcible  repetition. 
Now,  however,  and  by  the  last  remarks  with  respect  to  the  his 
tories,  we  are  brought  to  the  special  work  expected  from  your 
committee  of  this  year,  the  examination  of  the  books  allowed  for 
use  by  the  last  ruling  of  our  Board  of  Education,  and  now  in  use 
in  the  "  public  "  and  some  of  the  private  schools  of  the  State. 

ALL  ARE  UNFIT. 

To  begin  with,  and  in  general :  As  the  result  of  our  examination 
and  such  scholarly  aid  as  we  have  been  able  to  secure,  we  have  to 
report  the  positive  conclusion  that  no  Northern  author  has  yet 
written  a  school  history  in  which  it  is  not  easy  to  trace  one  or 
more  of  the  purposes  we  have  described  and  denounced.  All  that 
we  have  seen  are  for  this  reason  unfit  for  use  in  Southern  schools. 

Nor  do  we  hesitate  to  express  the  opinion  that,  standing,  as  these 
people  do  to  the  truth  of  history,  conscious  that  their  section  is 
on  trial  with  respect  to  the  sectional  war,  and  well  aware  of  the 
growing  signs  that  theirs  is  to  be  the  "Lost  Cause"  at  last — 
human  nature  being  imperfect — fair  history  cannot  be  expected  of 
Northern  authors,  unless  they  be  of  the  rarest  and  boldest,  worthy 
to  rank  with  the  inspired  historians  who  wrote  the  simple  truth. 
If  they  imitate  these  great  writers  they  conquer  self  to  an  extent 
impossible  for  simple  mortals;  offend  their  own  people,  and  fail 
of  their  market.  They  cannot  do  the  first;  fear  to  do  the  second; 
the  third,  their  publishers  will  not  allow.  Ignorantly  or  know 
ingly,  seeing  with  the  blinded  eyes  of  prejudice  or  intent  that 
others  shall  not  see,  they  are  constrained  to  falsify  the  record  in 
fact  or  in  effect;  otherwise  they  must  be  silent.  They  have  not 
been  silent. 


12  Official  Reports  of  the 

NEED   TO   PLEAD. 

Without  enlarging  upon  the  point  or  using  the  abundant  mate 
rial  to  be  had  from  English  and  American  literature,  we  stop  a 
moment  for  one  or  two  evidences  that  these  writers  have  need  to 
plead  their  cause  by  such  means  as  they  can  devise.  The  chairman 
of  this  committee  on  one  occasion,  being  in  England,  heard  a  num 
ber  of  British  officers  of  high  rank,  especially  engaged  in  the  study 
of  military  history,  express  their  opinion — which  we  rejoice  to  re 
cognize,  and  which  these  Northern  men  dread  as  the  world's  final 
verdict — that  while  Washington,  Lee,  and  Jackson  were  of  the 
great  leaders  of  the  world's  history,  the  North  had  never  produced 
a  great  commander;  that  Grant,  Sherman,  and  Sheridan  were  not 
to  be  thought  of;  that  the  renegade  Virginian,  Thomas,  was  the 
only  man  on  the  Northern  side  who  had  approached  that  rank. 
On  another  occasion,  travelling  in  New  England,  he  encountered 
a  gentleman  who  declared  himself  a  student  of  history,  and  desired 
to  be  told  how  it  happened  that  in  every  crisis  of  the  country's 
history  he  found  five  times  as  many  Southern  men  as  Northern 
prominently  managing  affairs.  He  knew,  he  said,  that  the  time 
would  come  when — utterly  wrong  and  unjust,  as  he  thought  it — 
all  the  romance  and  glory  of  this  war  would  gather  around  Lee  and 
Jackson,  and  not  around  Grant  and  Sheridan.  The  passing  years 
already  prove  the  soundness  of  his  judgment.  Well  may  they  dread 
to  appear  at  the  bar  of  their  own  consciences.  With  respect  to 
their  latest  act  of  war,  giving  the  suffrage  to  the  blacks — a  deed 
unsurpassed  for  hypocrisy  as  to  purpose,  malignant  intent,  and 
disastrous  effect  upon  all  concerned — these  writers  know  that  their 
best  men  are  uniting  to  condemn  it,  and  will  ere  long  confess  that 
it  was  indeed  conceived  in  iniquity  and  born  in  sin,  and  is  now 
itself  yielding  a  legion  of  devils  armed  to  torment  the  State.  Alas ! 
that  teachers  in  our  Southern  States  should,  through  any  mistake 
of  judgment  or  counsel,  join  the  North  in  teaching  that,  as  far  as 
we  are  the  sufferers,  we  reap  the  due  reward  of  our  deeds. 

FISKE'S  HISTORY. 

Now,  to  return  and  deal  with  the  particular  books  we  were  set 
to  examine: 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  13 

First  in  order  is  Mr.  John  Fiske's  History.  This  book  has  been 
very  carefully  examined,  noting  the  changes  appearing  in  the  edi 
tion  of  1899.  Eev.  Dr.  Tucker's  and  Mr.  Carter  A.  Bishop's  reports 
upon  it  have  already  been  submitted.  The  work  done  by  both  of 
these  gentlemen  is  able  and  conclusive.  To  read  their  reports 
would,  of  course,  overrun  our  time. 

It  is  evident  to  all  of  us  that  Mr.  Fiske  is  an  able  man  and  a 
student  of  history.  He  has  seen,  more  plainly  than  any  other 
perhaps  (what  the  Northern  orators  and  writers  are  silently  or 
openly  yielding),  that  every  claim  of  the  South,  of  such  sort  as 
naturally  rests  upon  categorical  facts,  is  already  res  adjudicata  in 
our  favor  at  the  bar  of  the  world.  He  knows  from  the  writers 
around  him  (Mr.  Lodge  and  others)  that  our  claim  to  the  right 
of  secession  cannot  be  resisted ;  that  the  right  of  coercion  cannot  be 
maintained;  that  the  superior  personal  and  military  character  of 
our  leaders  is  beyond  dispute;  that  estimating  Americans,  foreign 
mercenaries,  and  the  negroes  in  their  ranks,  the  average  type  and 
quality  of  their  private  soldier  was  far  below  ours ;  and  their  num 
bers  so  far  superior  that  the  Southern  victories  set  the  world  won 
dering.  He  knows,  too,  that  the  records  made  up  along  the  track 
of  armies  and  their  own  statistics  of  deaths  in  prison  have  forever 
proved  our  higher  civilization  in  war.  So  he  foresees  and  dreads 
the  day  of  doom,  when,  as  already  prophesied,  history  is  to  declare 
the  truth  triumphant  and  his  the  ''  Lost  Cause."  His  writings,  the 
others  as  well  as  the  history,  prove  his  consciousness  that  there  re 
mains  to  his  section  only  this  last  resort — to  make  the  world  believe 
that  our  motives  were  base — a  charge  which  they  hope  will  be 
answered  with  more  difficulty,  inasmuch  as  it  rests  upon  unsubstan 
tial  and  intangible  interpretation  of  facts,  and  not  upon  facts  them 
selves. 

ELEGANCE  OF  DICTION. 

With  elegance  of  diction  and  wealth  of  knowledge  sufficient  to 
blind  and  interest  a  multitude  of  readers  he  devotes  himself  to  this 
object.  He  is  an  advocate  seeking  to  procure  pardon  for  the 
wrong-doings  of  his  own  section  by  persuading  the  world  of  the  guilt 


14  Official  Reports  of  the 

of  ours;  by  convincing  all  who  read  or  study  his  book  (our  own 
children  among  them)  that  in  defiance  of  all  reasons  to  know  the 
wrong  of  slavery,  we  argued  before  the  war  and  fought  in  it,  not 
from  conviction  of  duty  or  loyalty  to  our  constitutional  rights  and 
those  of  our  children,  not  even  from  insulted  and  outraged  man 
hood,  but  simply  to  hold  the  negro  in  possession. 

We  do  not  assert  his  insincerity;  it  may  well  be  that  he  believed 
what  he  said  on  that  point.  He  is,  therefore,  the  more  dangerous 
as  teaching  falsehood  with  all  the  force  that  belongs  to  the  convic 
tion  of  truth. 

It  will  go  far  to  establish  our  proposition  as  to  Mr.  Fiske's 
inability  to  see  the  truth  when  slavery  and  the  war  enter  his  field  of 
view  and  the  consequent  entire  unfitness  of  his  "  history  "  for  school 
use,  if  we  briefly  examine  other  noted  writings  that  have  come  from 
his  hand.  It  is  a  maxim  laid  down  by  a  famous  philosopher  and 
writer  that  children  are  more  influenced  by  the  spirit  and  the  unex 
pressed  opinions  of  the  teacher  than  they  are  by  the  words  they 
chance  to  hear  from  his  lips.  We,  therefore,  examine  Mr.  Fiske. 
His  personality  is  in  his  history ;  the  chapter  and  verse  criticism  of 
that  book  is  in  the  able  reports  of  Captain  Bishop  and  Eev.  Dr. 
Tucker.  We  turn  to  the  latter  half  of  the  191st  page  of  his  much- 
lauded  "  Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors."  It  contains  matter 
which  will  not  only  prove  our  criticism  just,  but  furnish  us  occasion 
for  much  astonishment.  Speaking  of  the  slave-trade  and  its  aboli 
tion,  Mr.  Fiske  tells  us  that  George  Mason  in  his  lifetime  denounced 
the  "  infamous  traffic  "  "  in  terms  which  were  to  be  resented  by 
his  grandsons,  when  they  fell  from  the  lips  of  Wendell  Phillips." 
All  this  we  quote  literally.  A  handsome  antithesis  and  well  pro 
portioned  sentence,  you  will  observe.  The  author  is  not  careful 
to  present  (we  avoid  saying  that  he  is  careful  not  to  present)  the 
true  point  of  contrast.  George  Mason  denounced  as  "infamous" 
the  sale  of  free  men  into  slavery  and  the  horrors  of  the  middle  pas 
sage,  and  argued  against  slavery  in  Virginia  on  economic  and 
social  grounds.  Wendell  Phillips  denounced  the  South  and  South 
ern  slave-holders.  Mr.  Fiske's  readers  do  not  learn  from  him  that 
this  was  the  offence  that  we  resented,  and  that  with  a  just  indigna- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  15 

tion  which  Mr.  Mason  would  have  shared  to  the  full  had  he  been 
alive.  The  inference  that  Virginians  of  the  two  periods  were  not 
of  one  mind,  both  as  to  the  slave  trade  and  Yankee  interference,  is 
absolutely  false,  and  should  not  be  suggested  to  Southern  children. 

UNSAVORY  WORDS. 

On  that  same  191st  page  Virginians  are  told  that  there  was  once 
"  a  short-lived  emancipation  party  "  in  their  State,  but  that  "  after 
the  final  suppression  of  the  slave-trade  in  1808  and  the  consequent 
increased  demand  for  Virginia-bred  slaves,  the  thought  of  emanci 
pation  vanished  from  the  memory  of  man."  The  same  offensive  sug 
gestion  is  made  in  almost  the  same  language,  "the  breeding  of  slaves 
*  *  *  such  a  profitable  occupation  in  Virginia"  in  his  "Critical 
Period,"  etc.,  page  73,  and  again  on  page  266,  where  we  are  told  that 
when  the  inventions  of  Arkwright,  Cartwright,  and  Whitney  so 
greatly  increased  the  value  of  cotton,  there  resulted  a  great  demand 
for  slaves  "from  Virginia  as  a  breeding  ground,  and  the  Abolitionist 
Party  in  that  State  thereupon  disappeared,  leaving  her  to  join  in 
the  odious  struggle  for  introducing  slavery  into  the  national  do 
main."  In  both  passages  we  quote  him,  perhaps,  a  little  roughly; 
in  his  pages  all  this  is  handsomely  expressed,  for  Mr.  Fiske's  style 
is  very  fine,  as  you  may  learn  from  some  of  his  friends.  It  would, 
however,  be  difficult  to  discover  anywhere,  pen  pictures  so  advan 
tageously  incomplete — advantageously  incomplete,  because  a  state 
ment  of  the  facts  would  not  have  represented,  as  do  these  most 
slanderous  sentences,  a  mere  race  of  slave-breeders  easily  sacrificing 
their  convictions  for  the  value  of  slave  property  and  ready  to  fight 
for  it  when  occasion  should  arise. 

UTTERLY   UNRELIABLE. 

It  is  impossible  to  consider  these  passages  without  becoming 
convinced  of  the  utter  unreliability  of  this  historian  when  speak 
ing  of  slavery,  the  causes  of  the  war,  or  the  rights  asserted  by  the 
South.  It  was  to  be  supposed  that  in  writing  Virginia  history  he 
would  at  least  consult  Virginia  documents.  He  should  not  as 
sume  that  all  Virginians  are  equally  careless,  or  as  ignorant  of 


16  Official  Reports  of  the 

Virginia  history  as  the  record  proves  him  to  be,  or  as  charity  com 
pels  us  to  assume  that  he  is.  Eighteen  hundred  and  eight  is  his 
date  for  the  disappearance  of  all  thought  of  emancipation  in  Vir 
ginia.  Selecting  from  a  mass  of  documents,  he  might  have  read 
two  of  Mr.  Jefferson's  letters — one  to  Mr.  Coles,  another  to  Mr. 
Jared  Sparks — urging  his  views,  and  plans  for  emancipation  and 
deportation  to  Sierre  Leone,  etc.,  one  dated  August  25,  1814;  the 
other  February  4,  1824.  (See  Volume  IV.,  Jefferson's  Corres 
pondence.)  But  chiefly,  and  utterly  overthrowing  all  title  he  may 
have  to  credit  when  writing  of  these  subjects,  we  have,  and  he 
might  have  had,  Mr.  Thomas  W.  White's  volume,  published  in 
1832,  containing  the  great  Deportation  and  Emancipation  Debate 
in  the  Virginia  Legislature  in  January  and  February  of  that  year; 
the  debate  enlisting  the  strongest  speakers  of  the  State  and  con 
suming  a  great  part  of  those  two  months.  A  debate  pending, 
which,  as  will  be  remembered,  the  Virginia  House  of  Delegates 
under  date  of  January  25,  1832,  passed  its  resolution  declaring  it 
"  expedient  to  adopt  some  legislative  enactments  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  " ;  and  made  in  that  behalf  a  most  vigorous  movement, 
which  was  finally  defeated  by  a  very  small  majority,  and  that  only 
because  no  man  could  say  where  the  necessary  means  to  deport 
the  free  blacks  could  be  found,  and  none  could  suggest  any  other 
wise  and  safe  disposition  to  be  made  of  the  slaves  when  set  free. 
The  recent  Southampton  insurrection  had  strengthened  the  hands, 
and  added  to  the  number  of  those  who  wished  to  get  rid  of  the 
negroes  altogether.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  Virginia  argu 
ments  were  not  of  the  hypocritical,  sentimental  variety,  nor  were 
they  the  vehicles  to  covert  hatred  for  anybody.  They  expressed  the 
views  long  held  by  the  leaders  of  public  opinion  here  as  to  the  best 
social  and  economic  conditions  for  Virginia  and  Virginians.  It 
is  further  to  be  said,  and  that  with  great  emphasis,  that  the  char 
acter  and  conduct  of  free  State  populations  as  exhibited  in  our 
subsequent  history,  and  the  strongly  contrasted  character  and  con 
duct  of  our  Southern  people,  bring  into  the  very  gravest  doubt  the 
wisdom  of  our  fathers  in  these  opinions,  which  opinions  we  admit, 
and  (as  against  Mr.  Fiske's  statements)  claim  that  they  held  and 
acted  upon  long  after  his  date  of  1808. 


Camp,  C.  V.  IT 

We  return  to  say  that  when  our  fathers  tried  to  find  out  how 
to  get  rid  of  the  blacks,  it  did  not  occur  to  them  to  solve  the  ques 
tion  as  our  Northern  friends  had  done  by  sales  to  the  South.  Nor 
could  we  further  imitate  them  in  contemplating  with  indifference 
such  consequences  of  abolition  as  now  confront  us.  The  fact  that 
all  this  history,  of  date  subsequent  to  1808,  is  omitted  in  both  of  the 
books  quoted  proves  that  it  is  not  an  accidental  result  of  Mr.  Fiske's 
misleading  love  for  a  rounded  period.  Our  teachers  should  not 
allow  our  children  to  think  of  this  venerable  State  as  a  mere  negro 
"  breeding  ground,"  or  of  her  people  as  won  from  other  thoughts 
while  gloating  over  the  money  value  of  the  blacks. 

Mr.  Fiske  apparently  does  not  know  that  during  these  very  years 
the  African  Colonization  Society,  laboring  to  effect  these  very  objects, 
had  among  its  vice-presidents  General  John  Mason,  of  Virginia, 
son  of  George  Mason,  and  father  of  Senator  James  M.  Mason;  also 
General  Charles  Fenton  Mercer,  of  Virginia,  who,  about  the  year 
1825,  introduced  in  Congress  the  resolution  declaring  the  slave 
trade  "piratical  warfare,"  and,  at  his  own  expense,  visited  various 
European  countries,  seeking  to  have  them  reach  the  same  decision. 
These  gentlemen  should  hardly  be  denounced  as  mere  slave-breeders. 
In  Mr.  Fiske's  country  he  is  not  very  familiar  with  individual 
acts  of  emancipation;  nor  does  he  know  how  many  Virginians, 
long  after  1808,  manumitted  their  slaves — among  them  John  Ean- 
dolph  of  Eoanoke,  whose  executor,  Bishop  Meade,  located  them  in 
the  beautiful  region  where  now  stands  the  town  of  Xenia,  Ohio; 
giving  them  good  homes,  of  which  the  neighboring  whites  shortly 
dispossessed  them.     Many,  many  such  cases  marked  the  time  to 
"the  fifties,"  when,  as  all  men  know,  the  end  of  emancipation  in 
Virginia   came   about  through   the   "pious"   interference   of   the 
Northern  Abolitionist.    In  consequence  of  which  a  Virginian,  manu 
mitting  his  slaves,  in  effect,  gave  the  weight  of  his  influence  to  the 
sentiment  represented  by  the  destroyers  of  our  peace,  and  so  felt 
that  he  must  at  least  suspend  his  purpose  lest  he  should  become  an 
ally  of  the  enemies  of  the  State.     This  is  the  exact  truth  of  the 
situation  with  respect  to  that  matter.     Mr.  Fiske's  writings  teach 
us  the  opposite.     Our  children,  taught  by  him,  would  neither  learn 
2 


18  Official  Reports  of  the 

it  nor  readily  believe  it.  Our  conviction  is  that  this  half  page, 
though  taken  from  his  "  Old  Virginia/'  to  say  nothing  of  his  yet 
more  objectionable  "  Critical  Period/'  is  enough  to  banish  from 
Southern  schools  Mr.  Fiske's  history  and  everything  else  that  he 
ever  wrote.  We  quote  indifferently  from  other  books  than  the  his 
tory,,  as  we  are  merely  engaged  in  proving  Mr.  Fiske's  unfitness  as 
a  guide  for  Southern  readers.,  even  if  the  North  is  content  to  follow 
him.  We,  therefore,  turn  again  to  the  "  Critical  Period  of  Amer 
ican  History."  He  is  speaking  of  the  successive  ratifications  of 
the  Constitution  of  1787.  Page  330,  speaking  of  "  amendments 
offered  by  Massachusetts/'  he  says :  "  It  was  not  intended  that  the 
ratification  should  be  conditional."  Pages  336-7-8,  he  is  telling 
us  of  the  triumph  of  Madison  and  Marshall  in  securing  Virginia's 
ratification  by  a  narrow  majority  of  89  against  79.  He  goes  on  to 
use  these  words :  "  Amendments  were  offered  after  the  example 
of  Massachusetts."  We  appear  from  his  statement  to  have  acted 
after  that  example.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  both  States,  after 
ratifying  the  Constitution,  did  recommend  certain  notable  amend 
ments.  Not  one  word  is  there  to  indicate  any  different  action  at 
all.  We  necessarily  suppose  that  here,  too,  "it  was  not  intended 
that  the  ratification  should  be  conditional."  Would  any  unin 
formed  or  unsuspicious  reader  imagine  that  while  the  Massachusetts 
act  was  a  simple  acceptance,  there  occurred  in  the  body  of  the  Vir 
ginia  act  of  ratification  the  following  emphatic  declaration  ?  "  We, 
the  delegates  of  the  people  of  Virginia,  do,  in  the  name  and  behalf 
of  the  people  of  Virginia  declare  and  make  known  that  the  powers 
granted  under  the  Constitution  being  derived  from  the  people  of 
the  United  States  may  be  resumed  by  them  whensoever  the  same 
shall  be  perverted  to  their  injury  or  oppression,  and  that  every 
power  not  granted  thereby  remains  with  them  and  at  their  will," 
etc.  Mr.  Fiske  evidently  did  not  think  this  worth  mentioning. 
The  effect  of  the  point  of  view  upon  the  historic  perception  is  simply 
wonderful. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  19 

IS    MISLEADING. 

In  speaking  of  the  New  York  ratification  (page  344),  he  says  that 
Hamilton,  fighting  over  the  question  whether  New  York  could 
ratify  the  Constitution  conditionally,  reinforced  himself  with  the 
advice  of  Madison.  The  question  was,  "  Could  a  State  once  adopt 
the  Constitution  and  then  withdraw  from  the  Union  if  not  satis 
fied  ?  "  "  Madison's  reply,"  he  says,  "  was  prompt  and  decisive." 
Such  a  thing  could  never  be  done.  *  *  *  "  There  could  be  no 
such  thing  as  a  constitutional  right  of  secession."  How  much  of 
this  he  intends  to  give  as  direct  quotation  from  Madison's  lips  does 
not  appear. 

The  letter  itself  our  readers  will  find  in  Hamilton's  works,  volume 
I.,  or  more  conveniently  in  Henry's  "  Patrick  Henry,"  volume  II., 
page  368,  where  will  also  be  found  some  interesting  comments  there 
upon.  It  (the  letter)  does  not  contain  Mr.  Fiske's  exact  words,  but 
it  cannot  be  said  that  he  overdraws  that  individual  paper.  It  loses 
none  of  its  force  in  his  hands.  Our  author,  however,  thus  present 
ing  Mr.  Madison  to  his  readers,  deals  unfairly  in  failing  to  avail 
himself  of  the  opportunity  to  give  certain  very  important  counter 
utterances  of  that  statesman.  We  think  that  in  fairness  to  him  and 
in  order  that  readers  might  be  more  truly  informed,  a  few  lines 
might  have  been  added  setting  forth  the  fact  that  Mr.  Madison 
(with  Marshall  and  Nicholas)  procured  the  passage  of  the  Virginia 
act  that  we  have  quoted,  and  was  himself  the  reputed  author  of  the 
"Besolutions  of  1798."  That  being  done,  Mr.  Madison's  absolute 
concurrence  with  Mr.  Fiske  as  to  the  whole  question,  might  not  have 
been  so  clear.  The  quotation  actually  given  would  have  at  least 
lost  much  of  its  force,  as  an  unbiased  reader  would  have  thought 
Mr.  Madison  singularly  at  variance  with  himself,  if  not  with  Mr. 
Fiske.  Let  teachers,  at  least,  tell  the  whole  story. 

It  is  enough  to  say,  further,  that  Mr.  Fiske,  writing  Virginia  his 
tory,  makes  no  allusion  to  the  Virginia  resolution,  joining  the  Union 
in  language  which  the  concurrent  debate  (Elliott,  volume  II.,  pages 
625  and  626)  proves  to  have  been  understood  as  a  condition  of  right 
to  withdraw.  Not  universally,  of  course  (nor,  perhaps,  by  extreme 
Federalists),  but  so  far  as  to  secure  its  adoption.  And  so  far,  be 


20  Official  Reports  of  the 

it  said,,  as  forever  to  debar  any  other  parties  to  the  compact  from 
any  question  as  to  the  terms  upon  which  we  entered  the  Union. 
This  is  Virginia  (and  United  States)  history,  as  it  is;  but  not  as 
Mr.  Fiske  sees  it  and  teaches  it  to  Virginia  children.  Even  the 
extreme  Federalists  supported  this  view  by  implication,  if  not  in 
direct  terms.  Mr.  Madison,  on  one  occasion,  replying  to  Mr. 
Henry's  charge  that  they  were  constructing  a  consolidated  govern 
ment,  declares  that  "the  parties  to  the  Constitution  are  not  the 
people  (of  the  United  States)  as  composing  one  great  body,  but  the 
people  as  composing  thirteen  sovereignties."  Mr.  Nicholas  uses  the 
words  "the  condition  is  part  of  the  compact/'  At  any  rate,  the 
resolution  which  we  have  quoted  (though  not  from  Mr.  Fiske's 
account)  passed  the  Virginia  Legislature,  and  was  the  law  until  the 
9th  of  April,  1865. 

With  respect  to  New  York,  the  untrained  reader  would  neces 
sarily  infer  that  the  failure  of  the  condition  in  that  State  was  com 
plete,  while  from  the  same  Elliot's  Debates  (volume  I.,  pages  327- 
329)  we  find  the  language  scarcely  less  emphatic  than  that  of  the 
Virginia  resolution — to  some  minds  even  more  emphatic. 

We  are  not  ourselves  attempting  or  professing  to  give  that  whole 
story  of  both  sides  of  the  debates  which  fair  history  would  require. 
But  Mr.  Fiske  is  writing  history,  or  professes  to  be.  Our  duty  is  to 
inquire  whether  he  has  given  us  such  history  as  should  be  taught. 
We  believe  and  claim  that  the  contrast  between  his  pages  and  the 
full  records  show  that  he  has  given  but  one  side,  and  so  has  pre 
sented  a  picture  unfit  to  be  shown  to  our  schools. 

OFFENSIVE   DOCTRINE 

We  return  to  the  most  offensive  doctrine  of  the  books  that  we 
condemn,  the  charge  that  the  Southern  soldier  fought  for  slave 
property.  If  this  charge  be  just,  let  the  truth  be  taught.  It  is 
false.  The  answer  to  it  is  on  every  page  of  our  history,  and  the 
books  that  make  the  charge  should  not  be  used  in  our  schools. 

We  all  remember  how  many  Virginians  of  1861,  knowing  that  the 
bloodthirst  of  Naseby  and  Marston  Moor  was  unslaked,  yet  weary 
of  the  blood-feud  that  had  antedated  the  Eevolution;  tired  of  sec- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  21 

tional  strife  recurring  with  every  question  of  general  interest; 
simply  weary  of  quarrelling;  convinced  by  the  election  of  Lincoln 
that  the  quarrel  never  would  end — went  into  the  war  in  hope  of 
conquering  peace,  and  before  going  gave  their  negroes  leave  to  be 
free,  if  they  chose.  The  attitude  of  one  or  two  prominent  fighters 
with  respect  to  slave  property  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 
The  "  Campaigns  of  Stonewall  Jackson/'  by  Colonel  G.  F.  E.  Hen 
derson,  of  the  British  Staff  College,  Camberley,  England,  should 
be  read  by  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  South.  It  would 
help  the  Northern  people  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth.  On  page 
108,  volume  I.,  of  that  great  book  we  find  the  following  extract 
from  a  letter  of  General  Robert  E.  Lee :  "  In  this  enlightened  age/' 
wrote  the  future  general-in-chief  of  the  Confederate  army,  "  there 
are  few,  I  believe,  but  will  acknowledge  that  slavery  as  an  institution 
is  a  moral  and  political  evil.  It  is  useless  to  expatiate  on  its  disad 
vantages.  I  think  it  is  a  greater  evil  to  the  white  than  to  the  colored 
race,  and  while  my  feelings  are  strongly  interested  in  the  latter,  my 
sympathies  are  more  deeply  engaged  for  the  former.  The  blacks 
are  immeasurably  better  off  here  than  in  Africa — morally,  socially, 
and  physically.  The  painful  discipline  they  are  undergoing  is 
necessary  for  their  instruction  as  a  race,  and,  I  hope,  will  prepare 
them  for  better  things.  How  long  their  subjection  may  be  neces 
sary  is  known  and  ordered  by  a  merciful  Providence.  Their  eman 
cipation  will  sooner  result  from  the  mild  and  melting  influence  of 
Christianity  than  from  the  storms  and  contests  of  fiery  controversy. 
This  influence,  though  slow,  is  sure.  The  doctrines  and  miracles 
of  our  Saviour  have  required  nearly  two  thousand  years  to  convert 
but  a  small  part  of  the  human  race,  and  even  among  Christian 
nations  what  gross  errors  still  exist!  While  we  see  the  course  of 
the  final  abolition  of  slavery  is  still  onward,  and  we  give  it  the  aid 
of  our  prayers  and  all  justifiable  means  in  our  power,  we  must  leave 
the  progress  as  well  as  the  result  in  His  hands  who  sees  the  end 
and  who  chooses  to  work  by  slow  things,  and  with  whom  a  thousand 
years  are  but  as  a  single  day.  The  Abolitionist  must  know  this,  and 
must  see  that  he  has  neither  the  right  nor  the  power  of  operating 
except  by  moral  means  and  suasion;  if  he  means  well  to  the  slave 


22  Official  Reports  of  the 

he  must  not  create  angry  feelings  in  the  master.     Although  he  may 
not  approve  of  the  mode  by  which  it  pleases  Providence  to  accom 
plish  its  purposes,  the  result  will  nevertheless  be  the  same ;  and  the 
reason  he  gives  for  interference  in  what  he  has  no  concern  holds 
good  for  every  kind  of  interference  with  our  neighbors  when  we 
disapprove  of  their  conduct."     On  the  same  page  Colonel  Hender 
son  quotes  from  the  lips  of  Mrs.  Jackson  like  opinions  held  by  her 
husband.     These  are  opinions  expressed  before  the  war.     Do  they 
indicate  that  Lee  and  Jackson  fought  to  preserve  slave  property? 
I  myself  know  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  General  Lee,  wise 
and  far-seeing  beyond  his  fellow-men,  was  in  favor  of  freeing  all 
the  slaves  in  the  South,  giving  to  each  owner  a  bond,  to  be  the  first 
paid  by  the  Confederacy  when  its  independence  should  be  secured; 
and  that  Stonewall  Jackson,  while  believing  in  the  Scriptural  right 
to  own  slaves,  thought  it  would  be  politic  in  the  white  people  to  free 
them.     He  owned  two — one  a  negro  man,  whose  first  owner,  being 
in  financial  difficulties,  was  compelled  to  sell.   The  negro  asked  Gen 
eral  Jackson  to  buy  him,  and  let  him  work  until  he  accumulated  the 
money  to  pay  the  General  back.     He  was  a  waiter  in  a  hotel,  and 
in  a  few  years  earned  the  money ;  gave  it  to  Jackson,  and  secured 
his  freedom.     The  other  was  a  negress  about  to  be  sold  and  sent 
away  from  Lexington.     She  asked  Jackson  to  buy  her,  which  he 
did,  and  then  offered  to  let  her  work  as  the  man  had  done  and 
secure  her  freedom.     She  preferred  to  stay  with  the  General  and  his 
wife  as  a  slave,  and  was  an  honest,  faithful,  and  affectionate  servant. 
General  Joseph  E.  Johnston  never  owned  a  slave.     How  much  of 
the  fighting  spirit  and  purpose  of  the  South  was  in  the  breast  of 
Lee,  Johnston,  and  Jackson?     Do  the  facts  recited  indicate  that  the 
desire  to  retain  slave  property  gave  them  nerve  for  the  battle? 
Does  any  man  living  know  of  a  soldier  in  this  State  who  was  fight 
ing  for  the  negro  or  his  value  in  money?     I  never  heard  of  one. 
The  Stonewall  Brigade  of  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia,  was  a 
fighting  organization.    I  knew  nearly  every  man  in  it,  for  I  belonged 
to  it  for  a  long  time ;  and  I  know  that  I.  am  within  proper  bounds 
when  I  assert  that  there  was  not  one  soldier  in  thirty  who  owned 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  23 

or  ever  expected  to  own  a  slave.     The  South  fighting  for  the  money 
value  of  the  negro !     What  a  cheap  and  wicked  falsehood ! 

MOTIVES  Or  ACTION. 

Finally,  and  this  deserves  a  separate  paragraph — with  respect  to 
the  motives  of  action,  we  would  be  glad  if  Mr.  Fiske  or  any  other 
Northern  author  would  relieve  us  of  the  mental  confusion  resulting 
from  the  contemplation  of  the  facts  that  Eobert  E.  Lee  set  free  all 
of  his  slaves  long  before  the  Sectional  War  began,  and  that  U.  S. 
Grant  retained  his  as  slaves  until  they  were  made  free  as  one  of  the 
results  of  Lincoln's  Emancipation  Proclamation.* 

Soldiers  and  gentlemen,  we  accepted  in  full  faith  and  honesty 
the  arbitrament  of  the  sword.  We  are  to-day  all  that  may  be 
honorably  meant  by  the  expression  "  loyal  American  citizens."  But 
we  are  also  loyal  to  the  memory  of  our  glorious  dead,  and  the  heroic 
living  of  the  Confederacy,  and  we  will  defend  them  in  our  poor  way 
from  the  false  and  foul  aspersions  of  Northern  historians  as  long 
as  brain  can  think  or  tongue  and  pen  can  do  their  office.  We  desire 
that  our  children  shall  be  animated  by  the  same  spirit. 

Mr.  Fiske  furthermore  teaches  our  children  that,  but  for  the  war 
the  South  would  have  reopened  the  slave  trade.  He  tells,  without 
quotation  of  authorities,  a  certain  story  of  slave  ships  landing  their 
cargoes  in  the  South.  Those  of  us  who  were  men  in  the  later  fifties 
will  remember  a  rumor  that  about  that  time  a  vessel  (called  The 
Wanderer,  and  commanded  by  a  Southern  man)  brought  a  cargo  of 
Africans  into  a  Southern  river.  It  was  also  rumored  that  one  or  more 
ships,  owned  and  commanded  by  Northern  men,  were  engaged  in 
the  same  work.  The  stories  may  or  may  not  have  been  true. 
Granted  the  truth;  the  fact  that  one  or  more  Yankee  slave-traders 
had  returned  to  the  sins  of  their  fathers  does  not  prove  that  20,000,- 
000  of  them  were  about  to  do  so;  nor  does  the  purchase  of  such 

*"  Few,  perhaps,  know  that  General  Grant  was  a  slave-holder,  but 
the  fact  is  that  he  had  several  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  these  were 
freed,  like  those  in  the  South,  by  the  Emancipation  Proclamation. 
'  These  slaves,'  said  Mrs.  Grant,  '  came  to  him  from  my  father's  family, 
for  I  lived  in  the  West  when  I  married  the  General,  who  was  then  a 
lieutenant  in  the  army.'  " 


24  Official  Reports  of  the 

cargoes  by  half  a  dozen  Southern  planters  prove  that  5,000,000 
of  them  had  determined  thus  to  strengthen  their  working  forces. 

WHAT    HE    OVERLOOKS. 

In  his  work  Mr.  Fiske  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  Confederate 
Government,  at  the  first  meeting  of  its  Congress,  incorporated  into 
its  Constitution  a  clause  which  forever  forbade  the  reopening  of  the 
slave  trade.  I  beg  you  to  consider  the  following  contrast :  George 
III.  forced  the  Virginia  Governor  to  veto  our  Virginia  act  of  1769, 
prohibiting  the  further  importation  of  slaves.  Mr.  Fiske  tells  us 
that  "  in  Jeffer son's  first  draft  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
this  act  (of  the  King)  was  made  the  occasion  of  a  fierce  denuncia 
tion  of  slavery,  but  in  deference  to  the  prejudices  of  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia,  the  clause  was  struck  out  by  Congress." 

The  different  impressions  made  on  different  authors  by  the  same 
facts  is  to  be  observed.  Mr.  George  Lunt,  of  Boston  (Origin  of  the 
Late  War) ,  understood  Mr.  Jefferson  to  show  that  the  omission  was 
very  largely  due  to  "  the  influence  of  the  Northern  maritime  States." 
Mr.  Jefferson  wrote  the  passage  and  describes  the  incident.  To  us, 
it  appears  from  his  account  that  this  denunciation  was  of  the  King 
not  less  than — perhaps  more  than — of  this  traffic  to  which  we  Vir 
ginians  were  so  much  opposed.  As  to  the  omission  of  the  passage, 
he  gives  Mr.  Fiske's  statement  as  to  South  Carolina  and  Georgia, 
but  adds  the  following,  which  Mr.  Fiske  omits :  "  Our  Northern 
brethren  also,  I  believe,  felt  a  little  tender  under  these  censures,  for 
though  their  people  had  very  few  slaves,  yet  they  had  been  pretty 
considerable  carriers  of  them  to  others."  Of  course,  historians  can 
not  say  everything — must  omit  something.  We  could  wish,  however, 
that  our  author  had  displayed  a  less  judicious  taste  in  omissions. 
Be  it  understood  that  we  ourselves  omit  many  things  that  we  would 
say,  but  for  the  fact  that  we  are  only  seeking  to  supply  some  of 
Mr.  Fiske's  omissions,  and  so  establish  our  proposition  that  our 
children  cannot  get  true  pictures  from  this  artist's  brush,  and  that 
his  book  ought  not  to  be  in  our  schools. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  25 

UNHOLY   COMBINATION. 

"  The  Origin  of  the  Late  War,"  published  by  the  Appleton's  in 
1866,  but  out  of  print  for  lack  of  Northern  popularity,  is  a  book 
pre-eminently,  worthy  of  reading.  Its  author,  Mr.  George  Lunt, 
of  Boston,  in  Mr.  Fiske's  own  State  of  Massachusetts,  tells  us  that 
an  unholy  combination  between  Massachusetts  Freesoilers  and  Dem 
ocrats  to  defeat  the  Whigs,  with  no  reference  to  any  principle  at 
all,  sent  Sumner  to  Congress  and  materially  contributed  to  the 
cause  of  the  war,  partly  through  the  Preston  Brooks  incident,  which 
Mr.  Fiske  so  unfairly  describes.  "  Slavery,"  this  author  observes, 
"was  the  cause  of  war,  just  as  property  is  the  cause  of  robbery." 
If  Mr.  Fiske  will  read  the  Lincoln  and  Douglass  debates  of  the  time 
before  the  war;  if  he  will  lay  aside  preconceived  opinion  and  read 
the  Emancipation  Proclamation  itself,  he  will  see  that  not  even 
for  Lincoln  himself  was  slavery  the  cause  of  action,  or  its  abolition 
his  intent ;  that  emancipation  was  simply  a  war  measure,  not  affect 
ing,  as  you  know,  the  border  States  that  had  not  seceded ;  even  ex 
cluding  from  its  operation  certain  counties  of  Virginia;  simply 
intended  to  disable  the  fighting  States,  and  more  thoroughly  to 
unite  the  rabid  Abolitionists  of  the  North  in  his  own  deadly  pur 
pose  to  overthrow  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  States.  Just  after 
the  battle  of  Sharpsburg,  from  which,  as  you  remember,  he  dated 
his  abolition  proclamation,  he  very  clearly  indicated  his  view  of  the 
cause  or  purpose  of  the  war  on  his  part.  "  If  he  could  save  the 
Union,"  he  said,  "by  freeing  the  slaves,  he  would  do  it ;  if  he  could 
save  it  by  freeing  one-half  and  keeping  the  other  half  in  slavery,  he 
would  take  that  plan ;  if  keeping  them  all  in  slavery  would  effect  the 
object,  then  that  would  be  his  course."  Further,  with  respect  to  the 
provocation  offered  to  the  South  that  led  to  the  war — so  far  as 
slavery  was  its  cause — Mr.  Webster,  in  his  speech  at  Capon  Springs 
in  1851,  used  these  words :  "  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  and  repeat 
that  if  the  Northern  States  refuse  willfully  and  deliberately  to  carry 
into  effect  that  part  of  the  Constitution  which  respects  the  restora 
tion  of  fugitive  slaves,  the  South  would  no  longer  be  bound  to  keep 
the  compact."  Mr  Lunt  and  Mr.  Webster  were  Massachusetts  men, 
like  Mr.  Fiske.  Mr.  Webster  was  a  great  constitutional  lawyer ;  Mr. 


26  Official  Reports  of  the 

Lincoln  was  President.  Yet  we  do  not  learn  from  Mr.  Fiske  that 
any  of  these  heresies  or  mistaken  purposes  had  currency  in  Massa 
chusetts  or  in  the  Union.  He  would  teach  all  men  that  Mr,  Lincoln 
claims  immortality  as  the  apostle  of  freedom.  He  is  the  co-worker 
with  the  orator  of  their  absurd  Peace  Jubilee,,  who  lately  proclaimed 
that  the  flag  of  Washington  was  the  flag  of  independence ;  the  flag 
of  Lincoln  the  flag  of  liberty. 

FALSE  PICTURE. 

"  Demands  of  slave-holders/'  "  Concessions  to  slave-holders." 
These  and  the  like  are  the  expressions  our  author  uses  to  paint  a  pic 
ture  of  an  aggressive  South  and  a  conciliatory  North.  Through 
and  through  this  author's  work  runs  the  same  evidence  of  precon 
ception  as  to  the  causes  of  war,  and  predetermined  purpose  as  to  the 
effect  his  book  is  to  produce;  the  same  consciousness  of  the  neces 
sity  laid  upon  him  and  his  co-laborers;  the  same  proof  of  his  con 
sequent  inability  to  write  a  true  history  of  the  sectional  strife;  the 
same  proof  that  his  book  is  unfit  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of 
Southern  children. 

A  curious  observation  is  to  be  made.  Just  where  we  ourselves 
would  say  that  slavery  was  the  cause.,  or  at  least,,  the  occasion  of  the 
outbreak  of  the  war,  Mr.  Fiske  does  not  see  the  connection.  He 
would  have  us  take  even  his  own  statement  on  that  point  with  a 
very  marked  limitation.  "  Slavery  was  the  cause/'  but  only  in  so 
far  as  the  action  of  the  South  made  it  so,  and  by  no  means  in  conse 
quence  of  any  act  done  by  the  North  or  Northern  men.  That  is  the 
doctrine  that  we  must  teach  our  children.  Even  the  John  Brown 
raid  is  outside  of  the  group  of  causes.  That  was  beyond  question 
an  overt  act  of  Northern  men.  Therefore,  the  incident  is  to  be 
minimized  in  history  and  effect.  Those  of  you  who  remember  the 
situation  and  possibly  marched  to  Harper's  Ferry  on  that  occasion, 
will  be  surprised  to  note  that  Mr.  Fiske  says  "he  (Brown)  intended 
to  make  an  asylum  in  the  mountains  for  the  negroes,  and  that  the 
North  took  little  notice  of  his  raid."  There  is  no  occasion  for  an 
swering  such  a  statement.  We  know  that  Brown  and  those  who 
sent  him  here,  aiding  him  to  buy  his  pikes,  etc.,  purposed  war,  in- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  27 

tending  that  his  fort  should  be  the  headquarters  of  an  insurrection 
of  the  negroes,  and  purposed  that  his  pikes  should  be  driven  into 
the  breasts  of  Virginia  men  and  women.  All  of  us  remember  the 
platform  and  pulpit  denunciation  of  our  people,  the  parading,  the 
bell-tolling,  and  other  clamorous  manifestations  of  approval  and 
sympathy  which  went  through  the  North  and  convinced  the  people 
of  Virginia  that  the  long-threatened  war  of  the  ISrorth  against  the 
South  had  at  last  begun.  In  this  sense,  perhaps,  it  was  not  of  the 
causes  of  the  war ;  it  was  the  war.  I  myself  saw  the  demonstration 
of  the  Northern  people  on  that  occasion.  Happening  to  be  at  that 
time  living  in  Philadelphia,  it  was  instantly  plain  to  me  that  I  was 
in  an  enemy's  country.  The  southern  students  around  me  saw  it 
as  plainly  as  I  did.  It  took  but  a  dozen  sentences  to  open  the  eyes 
of  the  least  intelligent.  It  was  only  to  say,  "  Come  on,  boys  !  Let's 
go !  "  and  three  hundred  of  us  marched  over  on  our  side  of  the 
line.  The  war  for  us  was  on,  and  I  know  that  the  State  of  Virginia 
knew  that  was  what  the  North  meant.  Just  how  Mr.  Fiske  enables 
himself  to  make  the  statement  quoted,  we  cannot  understand.  We 
only  see  another  proof  that  his  point  of  view  distorts  the  picture  in 
his  mind,  to  such  an  extent  that  he  ought  not  to  be  employed  as  a 
painter  for  us  or  our  children. 

Much  has  been  said  of  Mr.  Fiske's  elegant  style.  We  will  only 
observe  that  the  sugar-coating  of  a  pill  does  not  justify  our  admin 
istering  poison.  The  Trojan  horse  may  have  been  a  shapely  struc 
ture,  but  in  its  belly  were  concealed  the  enemies  of  the  city.  It 
has  been  said,  perhaps  untruly,  that  the  rounded  period  marks  the 
unreliable  historian.  There  have  been  notable  examples  of  it.  And 
it  is  certainly  true  that  an  inconvenient  fact  does  sometimes  give 
pain  to  a  writer  who  is  in  the  habit  of  testing  his  sentences  by  his 
ear.  This  is  the  apparent  explanation  of  some  of  Mr.  Fiske's  ob* 
servations  as  to  slave-breeding  in  Virginia. 

ONE  MORE  POINT. 

One  other  point  remains.  The  statement  has  been  made,  and 
denied,  that  this  book  was  adopted  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
Citizens'  Committee  of  1898,  endorsed  by  the  Grand  Camp  Commit- 


28  Official  Reports  of  the 

tee  of  the  same  year.  However  the  impression  as  to  that  recom 
mendation  arose  or  was  made  on  the  mind  of  any  member  of  the 
Board  of  Education  or  anybody  else,  we  are  prepared  to  prove  by 
the  text,  and  by  a  recent  report  of  the  same  committee,  that  they 
recommended  only  two  books — the  Jones  and  Lee  histories. 

The  second  book  to  be  noticed,  also  erroneously  supposed  to  have 
been  recommended  by  the  committee  for  1898,  is  the  Cooper  and 
Estill  history,  "  Our  Country."  The  effective  detailed  criticism  of 
that  work  also  is  handed  you  in  the  able  report  of  Eev.  S.  Taylor 
Martin.  Like  the  last,  this  needs  only  a  general  criticism  as  a 
basis  for  the  resolution  we  shall  offer  for  your  adoption.  If  you 
will  read  the  "  Introduction  "  you  will  see  that  the  author  proposes 
to  write  such  a  book  as  will  serve  to  cultivate  a  large  patriotism  and 
eradicate  sectionalism.  This  is  doubtless  a  worthy  motive.  But 
a  preconceived  purpose  in  writing  is  the  bane  of  the  historian. 
The  great  Scripture  models  indicate  no  purpose;  they  simply  tell 
the  naked  truth.  Reading  the  so-called  history  these  gentlemen 
have  given  us  in  the  light  of  their  own  announced  intention,  we 
shall  find  that  it  has  led  them  again  and  again  so  to  present  inci 
dents  antagonistic  to  their  purpose  that  the  real  truth  is  not  told. 
Many  paragraphs  in  support  of  this  statement  may  readily  be  se-" 
lected.  We  respect  their  purpose,  but  it  has  far  misled  the  authors ; 
so  that,  to  put  it  briefly,  the  book  is  simply  not  a  history  of  the 
country. 

CAUSE  OF  STRIFE 

The  preconceived  purpose  to  write  a  book  that  will  cultivate  a 
large  patriotism  has  led  these  authors  so  to  deal  with  the  elements 
of  strife  between  the  North  and  South  as  to  make  it  appear  that 
no  guilt  or  blame  attached  to  either  party;  that  all  differences 
arose  naturally  and  innocently;  that  the  war  itself  was  the  logical 
outcome  of  circumstances  of  growth  and  development  for  which  the 
parties  engaged  were  not  responsible ;  and  that  it  was  not  the  result 
of  any  such  hostile  feeling  on  the  one  side  as  any  principle  re 
quired  the  other  to  return  in  kind.  The  preface,  to  which  allusion 
has  been  especially  made,  and  such  paragraphs  as  416,  519,  etc., 
for  example,  sufficiently  illustrate  our  meaning.  The  book  is  clearly 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  0.  V.  29 

in  error  as  to  some  very  important  matters,  as,  for  instance,  in  550; 
but  it  is  with  respect  to  and  in  consequence  of  the  effort  to  carry 
out  the  apparently  commendable  purpose  with  which  it  is  written, 
that  we  are  compelled  to  say  that  it  presents  a  picture  utterly  in 
consistent  with  the  truth.  Its  principal  errors  thus  concern  mat 
ters  of  right  and  principle,  as  to  which  it  is  of  the  first  and  last 
importance  that  our  children  should  be  rightly  informed,  and  so 
to  absolutely  forbid  its  use  in  our  schools.  The  book  is  all  the 
more  pernicious  because  its  authors  pose  as  Southern  men.  Such 
may  be  the  truth,  but  they  certainly  do  not  teach  the  truth  of  his 
tory.  This  so-called  history  does  not  anywhere  mention  the  names 
of  Generals  Ewell,  Hill,  Cheatham,  McLaws,  Wheeler,  Gordon,  and 
Stephen  D.  Lee.  NOT  is  there  any  record  of  the  battles  of  Ball's 
Bluff,  Gen.  Lee's  "West  Virginia  campaign,  Drewry's  Bluff, 
Chantilly,  Shepherdstown,  Forrest's  battle  of  Murfreesboro,  Salem 
Church,  Swell's  defeat  of  Milroy  at  Winchester.  The  defence 
of  Fort  Sumter  for  three  years,  the  battle  of  Trevillian's  Sta 
tion,  and  numerous  other  heavy  engagements  are  considered  un 
worthy  of  notice  by  these  Texas  authors.  The  affair  of  the  Merri- 
mac  and  Monitor  is  misleading  and  inaccurate.  The  story  of  the 
campaign  of  Lee  and  Grant  in  1864  is  a  model  of  inaccuracy.  In 
fact,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  such  a  compilation  could  be  the 
work  of  Southern  men. 

LEE  AND  JONES. 

Finally,  with  respect  to  the  Lee  and  Jones  histories.  They 
have  been  re-examined  by  members  of  the  committee,  and  while 
we  still  regard  them  as  the  best  so  far  published,  we  are  glad  to 
know  that  new  editions  of  them  have  been  or  are  to  be  issued,  and 
we  recommend  to  the  authors  and  publishers  such  careful  improve 
ments  in  style  and  arrangement  as  their  great  merits  deserve.  A 
much  improved  edition  of  the  first  has  just  come  to  hand.  We  re 
gard  both  of  them,  however,  as  insufficient  for  the  higher  classes  in 
our  schools  and  for  collegiate  use. 

Accordingly,  we  offer  for  your  adoption  the  following  resolutions : 
Resolved,  1.    That  this  committee,  after  due  examination  and 


30  Official  Reports  of  the 

consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  several  histories  recently  put 
upon  the  list  by  the  State  Board  of  Education  for  use  in  the  public 
schools  of  Virginia,,  earnestly  protests  against  the  retention  on  the 
list  of  the  history  by  Professor  John  Fiske,  of  Cambridge,  Mass., 
and  of  Cooper,  Estill  and  Lemon's  "  Our  Country,"  and  urge  that 
the  said  histories  be  eliminated  from  said  list. 

2.  That  we  likewise  earnestly  urge  that  the  histories  objected  to 
above  be  not  taught  in  the  private  schools  of  the  State,  and  that 
we  appeal  to  the  parents  of  the  school  children  of  Virginia  to  aid 
in  securing  their  exclusion. 

3.  That  in  our  judgment,  we  cannot  now  use  Northern  histories 
in  Southern  schools;  and  in  action  upon  this  resolution  we  invite 
the  co-operation  of  the  other  Grand  Camps  of  the  South. 

4.  That  it  is  recommended  to  our  "  Confederate  Camps  "  to  in 
quire  into  the  cost  and  expediency  of  publishing  and  circulating 
throughout  the  State  such  a  sketch  of  the  errors  that  have  been 
and  now  are  being  promulgated  in  Virginia  as  will  rouse  the  young 
people  falsely  taught  during  past  years  to  attempt  their  own  re 
education. 

BOOKS  TO  READ. 

5.  And,  as  a  suggestion  to  the  library  committee  of  our  various 
camps,  that  we  recommend  the  reading  of  the  following  books  and 
papers : 

"  The  Origin  of  the  Late  War,"  by  Mr.  George  Lunt,  an  attorney 
of  Boston,  published  in  1866  (Appleton  &  Co.)  ;  a  book  to  be  read 
by  our  people,  even  at  cost  of  steps  to  be  taken  to  secure  its  republi- 
cation. 

Lieutenant-Colonel  Henderson's  "  Campaigns  of  Stonewall  Jack 
son,"  the  new  edition  of  which  it  is  hoped  will  be  easily  within  our 
reach. 

Hon.  J.  L.  M.  Curry's  "  Southern  States  and  Constitution,"  and 
also  some  of  the  very  valuable  works  of  Mr.  John  C.  Eopes,  of 
Boston. 

6.  That  the  Grand  Camp  of  the  Confederate  Veterans  of  Vir 
ginia  earnestly  appeal  to  all  the  other  camps  in  the  South  to  de 
mand  the  elimination  of  all  false  histories  from  public  and  private 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  31 

schools ;  that  they  appoint  committees,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  see 
that  this  is  done;  to  urge  the  Sons  of  Veterans  and  Daughters  of 
the  Confederacy  to  co-operate  with  them  in  this  holy  work,  and  to 
remember  that  unless  this  effort  is  made  that  the  curse  that  belongs 
to  those  who  dishonor  father  and  mother  will  belong  to  them. 
All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted, 

HUNTER  McGuiRE, 

Chairman. 


W<" \  £S 


REPORT 


liV 


JUDGE  GEORGE  L.  CHRISTIAN, 

Acting   Chairman. 
OCTOBER  11,  1900. 

I.     The    right    of    Secession    Established    by 

Northern   Testimony. 

II.  The  North  the  Aggressor  in  Bringing  on 

the  War,  Established  by  Their 

Own  Testimony. 


REPORT  OF  OCTOBER  11,  1900 


To  the  Grand  Camp  of  Confederate  Veterans  of  Virginia: 

Some  time  in  July  last,  Dr.  Stuart  McGuire,  seeing  that  his 
father,  Dr.  Hunter  McGuire,  the  able  and  distinguished  Chairman 
of  this  Committee,,  was  permanently  disabled  for  longer  discharg 
ing  the  duties  devolving  on  him,  sent  his  resignation  to  your  Com 
mander.  A  meeting  of  this  Committee  was  promptly  called,  and 
it  was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  members  present  that  the 
resignation  should  not  be  accepted,  but  that  some  member  of  the 
Committee  should  be  designated  to  write  the  report  for  this  meet 
ing,  I  was  designated  by  the  Commander  for  the  performance  of 
this  important  task. 

Fully  recognizing  then,  as  I  do  now,  both  my  inability  and  the 
lack  of  time  at  my  command,  for  the  proper  discharge  of  the  duty 
thus  assigned  me,  I  earnestly  asked  to  be  excused  from  the  under 
taking,  and  nothing  but  my  devotion,  both  to  Dr.  McGuire  and 
the  Confederate  cause,  could  have  induced  me  to  consent  to  under 
take  a  work  for  which  I  felt  so  poorly  prepared. 

Since  that  time,  the  Hand  that  strikes  no  erring  blow  has  taken 
from  us  our  able  and  beloved  Chairman,  and  he  now  sleeps  in  beauti 
ful  Hollywood.  I  have  no  words  to  express  the  personal  loss  I  feel 
at  this  calamity,  and  I  know  that  you,  and  each  of  you,  share  with 
me  in  these  feelings.  Distinguished  both  in  war  and  in  peace 
for  ability  and  fidelity  to  every  trust,  there  was  nothing  for  which 
he  was  more  distinguished,  than  his  love  and  fidelity  to  our 
cause,  and  to  those  who  fought  to  sustain  it.  He  is  lost  to  us  as 
counsellor  and  friend;  he  is  lost  to  us  as  our  leader  in  labor  for 
the  truth.  I  am  here  not  to  supply  his  place.  No  one  can  know,  as 
I  do,  how  unequal  I  am  to  such  an  undertaking ;  but  I  am  here  to 
try,  as  best  I  may,  to  carry  out  the  plans  he  had  formed,  to  obey 
his  instructions,  all  unconsciously  given.  I  persuade  myself  that 
in  this  attempt  I  shall  have  your  kind  indulgence. 

[  35  ] 


36  Official  Reports  of  the 

SOUTH  NOT  THE  AGGRESSOR. 

The  evening  before  Dr.  McGuire  was  stricken  with  the  malady 
which  forever  incapacitated  him  for  any  earthly  service,  I  was 
with  him.,  and  as  was  frequently  the  case,  we  were  talking  about 
the  war.  In  the  course  of  the  conversation,,  he  alluded  to 
the  Report  of  last  year,  and  feelingly  expressed  his  just  pride  in 
the  way  you  received  it.  He  then  said :  "  I  am  already  making 
preparations  for  my  next  Report.  I  intend  in  that  to  vindicate  the 
South  from  the  oft-repeated  charge  that  we  were  the  aggressors 
in  bringing  on  the  war" ;  and  he  then  added :  "This  will  be  my  last 
'labor  of  love'  for  the  dear  Southern  people/'  Within  less  than 
twenty  hours  from  the  time  that  sentence  was  spoken,  the  splendid 
intellect  that  conceived  it  was  a  mournful  wreck,  and  the  tongue 
which  gave  it  utterance  was  paralyzed. 

My  task,  therefore,  is  to  show  that  your  Chairman  was  right  in 
saying  that  the  South  was  not  the  aggressor  in  bringing  on  the 
war;  that,  on  the  contrary,  we  did  all  that  honorable  men  could 
do  in  the  vain  attempt  to  avert  it — all  that  could  be  done  without 
debasing  the  men  and  women  of  the  South  with  conscious  disgrace, 
and  leaving  to  our  children  a  heritage  of  shame ;  and  I  shall  further 
prove  that  the  Northern  people,  with  Abraham  Lincoln  at  their  head, 
brought  on  the  war  by  provocation  to  war  and  by  act  of  war;  and 
that  they  were  and  are,  therefore,  directly  responsible  for  all  the 
multiplied  woes  which  resulted  therefrom.  In  doing  this,  I  shall 
quote  almost  exclusively  from  Northern  sources;  and,  whilst  I  can 
not  hope  to  bring  to  your  attention  at  this  late  day  anything 
new,  I  do  hope,  by  reiterating  and  repeating  some  of  the  old 
facts,  I  shall  be  able  to  revive  impressions  which  may  have  faded 
from  the  minds  of  some:  I  shall  hope,  too,  to  reach  the  many, 
many  others,  especially  the  young,  who  have  been  the  victims  of 
false  teaching  with  respect  to  these  facts,  or  have  had  no  oppor 
tunity,  or,  perhaps,  little  disposition,  to  become  familiar  with  them. 

REASONS  FOR  SUCH  PAPERS. 

It  is  well  to  set  forth  the  reasons  that  actuate  us  in  preparing 
such  papers  as  these.  These  reasons  were  presented  with  great 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  37 

force  in  the  Report  of  1899.  Now,  as  then,  they  are  found  in  the 
fact  that  the  denials  or  perversions  of  the  truth  are  sown  broad 
cast  all  over  the  literature  of  the  North.  Not  only  does  this  char 
acterize  their  permanent  histories,  as  then  shown  with  such  clear 
ness  of  criticism  and  cogency  of  reply,  but  their  story-writings, 
their  periodicals  and  transient  newspaper  publications — all,  are 
vehicles,  to  a  degree  at  least,  of  misrepresentation  on  these  points. 
Their  worthiest  orators  and  writers  have  dared  to  tell  the  truth 
on  important  points,  but  the  literature  we  have  described  is  that 
which  reaches  the  haphazard  reader  and  permeates  the  South  as 
well  as  the  North.  The  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic  contains 
many  brave  men.  We  have  met  them  with  arms  in  their  hands.  It 
contains  others  whose  weapons  of  warfare  are  opprobrious  epithets 
and  denunciatory  resolutions.  This  is  a  matter  of  annual  display. 
Annually  the  Northern  public  is  again  misled,  and  its  day  of  re 
pentance  is  postponed.  The  men  of  the  South  are,  therefore,  con 
strained  to  make  record  of  the  truth.  I  proceed  then  to  re 
state  my  purpose,  which  is  to  show  that  the  South  did  not,  and  that 
the  North  did  inaugurate  the  war.  Before  proceeding  to  the  direct 
discussion  of  this  question,  and  because  the  right  of  a  State  to  secede 
from  the  Union  was  the  real  issue  involved  in  the  conflict,  and  the 
proximate  cause  thereof,  I  think  it  pertinent  to  inquire  particularly, 
in  what  special  locality,  if  in  any,  this  doctrine  originated?  By 
whom,  if  by  either  party  rather  than  the  other,  it  was  most  em 
phatically  taught?  and  especially  which,  if  in  either  section,  the 
threat  of  the  application  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  was  first, 
most  frequently  and  most  ominously  heard?  In  pursuing  this 
inquiry,  and  adhering  to  our  plan  of  calling  the  North  to  witness, 
let  us  ask  first,  What  was  the  opinion  of  Northern  and  other  unpre 
judiced  writers  on  this  question  both  prior  to  and  since  the  war? 
Of  course,  we  know  that  the  right  of  a  State  to  secede  was  com 
monly  held  by  the  statesmen  of  the  South,  and  we  venture  the 
assertion  that  no  unprejudiced  mind  can  to-day  read  the  history 
of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  and  the  formation  of  this  gov 
ernment  under  it  without  being  convinced  that  the  right  of  seces 
sion  as  exercised  bv  the  South  did  exist, 


38  Official  Reports  of  the 

THE    RIGHT    OF    SECESSION. 

A  distinguished  English  writer  says: 

"  I  believe  the  right  of  secession  is  so  clear.,  that  if  the  South 
had  wished  to  do  so,  for  no  better  reasons  than  that  it  could  not 
bear  to  be  beaten  in  an  election,  like  a  sulky  school-boy  out  of  tem 
per  at  not  winning  a  game,  and  had  submitted  the  question  of  its 
right  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  to  the  decision  of  any  court  of 
law  in  Europe,  she  would  have  carried  her  point." 

Indeed,  the  decision  of  this  question  might,  with  propriety,  and 
doubtless  would,  have  rested  for  all  time  on  the  principles  enun 
ciated  in  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  of  1798  and 
'99,  and  the  report  of  Mr.  Madison  on  these  resolutions.  The  Vir 
ginia  resolutions  and  report  were  drawn  by  Mr.  Madison,  the 
"father  of  the  Constitution  " ;  and  those  of  Kentucky  by  Mr.  Jef 
ferson,  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

These  principles,  emanating  from  these  "  master-builders,"  would 
as  we  have  said,  have  settled  the  rights  of  the  States  on  this 
question  forever,  but  for  the  fact,  as  Mr.  Henry  Cabot  Lodge, 
of  Massachusetts,  tells  us,  that  the  North  was  controlled  by  expedi 
ency,  and  not  by  principle,  in  the  consideration  of  them.  These 
resolutions,  when  adopted  by  Virginia  and  Kentucky,  were  sent  to 
the  Northern  Legislatures  for  their  concurrence;  and  the  distin 
guished  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  from  whom  we  are  quoting 
says  in  terms,  in  his  Life  of  Webster,  that  when  the  resolutions 
were  thus  submitted,  "  they  were  not  opposed  on  constitutional 
grounds,  but  only  on  those  of  expediency  and  hostility  to  the  revo 
lution  they  were  considered  to  embody."  That  they  did  not,  and 
could  not,  cite  any  constitutional  principle  as  ground  for  their  re 
jection,  only  they  held  that  the  revolution  involved  in  their  appli 
cation  was  at  that  time  inexpedient.  In  other  words,  it  did  not  pay 
the  New  England  States  to  endorse  the  principles  of  those  resolu 
tions  then;  but  when  they  thought  they  were  being  oppressed  by 
the  Federal  Government  a  few  years  later  (as  we  shall  pres 
ently  see),  they  were  not  only  ready  to  endorse  these  resolutions, 
but  actually  threatened  to  secede  from  the  Union. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  39 

TWO   PERTINENT   QUESTIONS. 

But  I  wish  to  advance  a  step  further  in  the  argument,  and  in 
quire  : 

(1)  Where  the  doctrine  of  secession  originated?  and 

(2)  What  distinguished  Northern  statesmen  have  said  of  the 
right,  both  before  and  since  the  war? 

Here  we  may  properly  add  the  clear  statement  of  an  able  Northern 
writer,  who  declares  his  opinion  (presently  to  be  quoted  in  full) 
that  at  the  time  the  Constitution  was  accepted  by  the  States,  there 
was  not  a  man  in  the  country  who  doubted  the  right  of  each  and 
every  State  peaceably  to  withdraw  from  the  Union.  In  fact,  we 
may  at  once  answer  our  first  inquiry  by  saying  that  the  doctrine  of 
secession  originated  in  neither  section,  but  was  recognized  at  the 
first  as  underlying  the  Constitution  and  accepted  by  all  parties. 
In  confirmation  of  this  view,  but  particularly  with  respect  to  the 
region  of  its  earliest,  most  frequent,  most  emphatic  and  most 
threatening  assertion,  we  proceed  to  show  further,  that  a  recent 
Northern  writer  has  used  this  language : 

"A  popular  notion  is  that  the  State-rights — secession  or  disunion 
doctrine — was  originated  by  Calhoun,  and  was  a  South  Carolina 
heresy.  But  that  popular  notion  is  wrong.  According  to  the  best 
information  I  have  been  able  to  acquire  on  the  subject,  the  State- 
rights,  or  secession  doctrine,  was  originated  by  Josiah  Quincy, 
and  was  a  Massachusetts  heresy." 

This  writer  says  Quincy  first  enunciated  the  doctrine  in  oppos 
ing  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  what  was  then  called  the  "  Orleans 
Territory"  (now  Louisiana)  in  1811,  when  he  declared  that  "if 
the  bill  passed  and  that  territory  was  submitted,  the  act  would  be 
subversive  of  the  Union,  and  the  several  States  would  be  freed 
from  their  federal  bonds  and  obligations;  and  that,  as  it  will  be 
the  right  of  all  (the  States),  so  it  will  be  the  duty  of  some  to  pre 
pare  definitely  for  a  separation,  amicably  if  they  can,  violently  if 
they  must." 

Whilst  this  author  may  be  right  in  characterizing  the  develop 
ment  of  the  doctrine,  and  fixing  this  right  as  a  "  Massachusetts 


40  Official  Reports  of  the 

heresy/7  he  is  wrong  in  fixing  upon  its  first  progenitor,  and  in  say 
ing  that  the  date  of  its  birth  was  as  late  as  1811;  for  in  1803,  one 
Colonel  Timothy  Pickering,  a  senator  from  Massachusetts,  and 
Secretary  of  State  in  the  Cabinet  of  John  Adams,  complaining 
of  what  he  called  "  the  oppression  of  the  aristocratic  Democrats  of 
the  South,"  said,  "I  will  not  despair;  I  will  rather  anticipate  a 
new  confederacy."  ..."  That  this  can  be  accomplished  without 
spilling  one  drop  of  blood  I  have  little  doubt/'  .  .  .  "  It  must 
begin  with  Massachusetts.  The  proposition  would  be  welcomed  by 
Connecticut;  and  could  we  doubt  of  New  Hampshire?  But  New 
York  must  be  associated;  and  how  is  her  concurrence  to  be  ob 
tained?  She  must  be  made  the  center  of  the  confederacy.  Ver 
mont  and  New  Jersey  would  follow,  of  course ;  and  Ehode  Island  of 
necessity." 

THE  HARTFORD  CONVENTION. 

In  1814,  the  Hartford  Convention  was  called  and  met  in  conse 
quence  of  the  opposition  of  New  England  to  the  war  then  pending 
with  Great  Britain.  Delegates  were  sent  to  this  Convention  by  the 
Legislatures  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  and 
several  counties  and  towns  from  other  Northern  States  also  sent 
representatives.  This  Convention,  after  deliberating  with  closed 
doors  on  the  propriety  of  withdrawing  the  States  represented  in  it 
from  the  Union,  published  an  address,  in  which  it  said,  among  other 
things : 

"  If  the  Union  be  destined  to  dissolution  ...  it  should,  if 
possible,  be  the  work  of  peaceable  times  and  deliberate  consent. 
.  .  .  Whenever  it  shall  appear  that  the  causes  are  radical  and 
permanent,  a  separation  by  equitable  arrangement  will  be  prefer 
able  to  an  alliance  by  constraint  among  nominal  friends,  but  real 
enemies." 

In  1839,  Ex-President  John  Quincy  Adams,  in  an  address  de 
livered  by  him  in  New  York,  said : 

"  The  indissoluble  link  of  union  between  the  people  of  the  sev 
eral  States  of  this  confederated  nation  is,  after  all,  not  in  the  right, 
but  in  the  heart.  If  the  day  should  ever  come  (may  Heaven  avert 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  41 

it)  when  the  affections  of  the  people  of  these  States  shall  be  alien 
ated  from  each  other,  the  bonds  of  political  association  will  not 
long  hold  together  parties  no  longer  attracted  by  the  magnetism  of 
consolidated  interests  and  kindly  sympathies ;  and  far  better  will  it 
be  for  the  people  of  the  disunited  States  to  part  in  friendship  with 
each  other  than  to  be  held  together  by  constraint." 

This  same  man  presented  to  Congress  the  first  petition  ever  pre 
sented  in  that  body  for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  William  Rawle,  a  distinguished  lawyer  and  jurist  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  in  his  work  on  the  Constitution,  says : 

"  It  depends  on  the  State  itself  to  retain  or  abolish  the  principle 
of  representation,  because  it  depends  on  itself  whether  it  will  con 
tinue  a  member  of  the  Union.  To  deny  this  right  would  be  incon 
sistent  with  the  principles  on  which  all  our  political  systems  are 
founded,  which  is  that  the  people  have  in  all  cases  a  right  to  deter 
mine  how  they  will  be  governed." 

In  the  case  of  the  Bank  of  Augusta  against  Earle,  13  Peters, 
590-592,  it  was  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
the  same  year  in  which  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  made  his  speech 
above  quoted  from  that — 

"  They  are  sovereign  States.  .  .  .  We  think  it  well  settled  (says  the 
Court)  that  by  the  law  of  comity  among  nations  a  corporation 
created  by  one  sovereign  is  permitted  to  make  contracts  in  another, 
and  to  sue  in  its  courts,  and  that  the  same  law  of  comity  prevails 
among  the  several  sovereignties  of  this  Union." 

Shortly  after  the  nomination  of  General  Taylor,  a  petition  was 
actually  presented  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  "asking 
Congress  to  devise  means  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union."  And 
the  votes  of  Messrs.  Seward,  Chase  and  Hale  were  recorded  in  favor 
of  its  reception. 

In  1844,  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  attempted  to  coerce 
the  President  and  Congress  by  the  use  of  this  language: 

"  The  project  of  the  annexation  of  Texas,  unless  arrested  on  the 
threshold,  may  tend  to  drive  these  States  (New  England)  into  a 
dissolution  of  the  Union." 

Daniel  Webster  (the  great  "  expounder  of  the  Constitution,"  as 


42  Official  Reports  of  the 

he  is  called),  notwithstanding  his  famous  reply  to  Mr.  Hayne,  de 
livered  in  1830,  in  which  he  so  ingeniously  denied  the  right  of  a 
State  to  determine  for  itself  when  its  constitutional  powers  were 
infringed,  and  also  that  the  Constitution  was  a  compact  between 
sovereign  States,  and  contended  that  the  power  to  determine  the 
constitutionality  of  the  laws  of  Congress  was  lodged  only  in  the 
Federal  Government,  in  a  speech  delivered  at  Capon  Springs,  Vir 
ginia,  in  1851,  used  this  language: 

"  If  the  South  were  to  violate  any  part  of  the  Constitution  in 
tentionally  and  systematically,  and  persist  in  so  doing  from  year 
to  year,  and  no  remedy  could  be  had,  would  the  North  be  any  longer 
bound  by  the  rest  of  it;  and  if  the  North  were  deliberately,  habit 
ually  and  of  fixed  purpose  to  disregard  one  part  of  it,  would  the 
South  be  bound  any  longer  to  observe  its  other  obligations?  .  .  . 
How  absurd  is  it  to  suppose  that  when  different  parties  enter  into 
a  compact  for  certain  purposes,  either  can  disregard  any  one  pro 
vision  and  expect  nevertheless  the  other  to  observe  the  rest !  .  .  . 
A  bargain  cannot  be  broken  on  one  side  and  still  bind  the  other." 

He  said,  in  a  speech  delivered  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  during  the  same 
year: 

"The  question,  fellow-citizens,  (and  I  put  it  to  you  as  the  real 
question) — the  question  is,  Whether  you  and  the  rest  of  the  people 
of  the  great  State  of  New  York  and  of  all  the  States,  will  so  adhere 
to  the  Union — will  so  enact  and  maintain  laws  to  preserve  that  in 
strument — that  you  will  not  only  remain  in  the  Union  yourselves, 
but  permit  your  Southern  brethren  to  remain  in  it  and  help  to  per 
petuate  it." 

How  different  is  the  language  above  quoted  from  Mr.  Webster  in 
his  Capon  Springs  speech  from  the  proposition  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Lincoln  in  his  first  inaugural,  when  he  says : 

"  One  party  to  a  contract  may  violate  it — break  it,  so  to  speak — 
but  does  it  not  require  all  to  lawfully  rescind  it  ?  " 

But,  what  more  could  be  expected  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  when  it  is  well 
known  that  he  held  that  the  relation  of  the  States  to  the  Union  was 
the  same  as  that  which  the  counties  bear  to  the  States  of  which  they 
respectively  form  a  part? 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  43 

HIS  REPLY  TO  HAYNE. 

Those  who  deny  the  right  of  secession  are  fond  of  quoting  as 
their  authority  extracts  from  Mr.  Webster's  reply  to  Mr.  Hayne, 
made  in  1830.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Capon  Springs  and 
Buffalo  speeches  were  made  in  1851 ;  and  these  last  are  the  product 
of  his  riper  thinking — his  profounder  reflections.  He  had  evidently 
learned  much  about  the  Constitution  in  the  twenty-one  years  that 
had  intervened,  and  in  his  maturer  years,  was  indeed  speaking  as  a 
statesman,  and  not  only  as  an  advocate,  as  he  did  in  1830. 

But  it  is  all-important  to  remember  that  Mr.  Webster  nowhere 
in  this  whole  speech  refers  to  the  right  of  secession.  His  whole  ar 
gument  in  this  connection,  is  against  the  right  of  nullification,  an 
other  and  very  different  thing;  but  one  which,  as  we  will  pres 
ently  show,  was  actually  being  exercised  by  fourteen  out  of  the  six 
teen  Free  States  in  1861. 

In  1855,  Senator  Benjamin  F.  Wade,  of  Ohio  (afterwards,  as  we 
know,  one  of  the  most  notorious  South-haters),  said  in  a  speech  de 
livered  in  the  United  States  Senate: 

"  Who  is  the  judge  in  the  last  resort  of  the  violation  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  by  the  enactment  of  a  law  ?  Who  is 
the  final  arbiter,  the  General  Government  or  the  States  in  their 
sovereignty?  Why,  sir,  to  yield  that  point  is  to  yield  up  all  the 
rights  of  the  States  to  protect  their  own  citizens,  and  to  consolidate 
this  government  into  a  miserable  despotism." 

And  he  further  said  on  the  18th  of  December,  1860 : 
"  I  do  not  so  much  blame  the  people  of  the  South,  because  I 
think  they  have  been  led  to  believe  that  we  to-day,  the  dominant 
party,  who  are  about  to  take  the  reins  of  government,  are  their  mor 
tal  foes,  and  stand  ready  to  trample  their  institutions  under  foot." 
And   notwithstanding   the   expression   of   these   sentiments,   we 
know,  as  we  say,  that  this  man  became  one  of  the  most  ardent  sup 
porters  of  the  "  miserable  despotism  "  established  by  Abraham  Lin 
coln,  and  became  the  second  officer  in  that  "  despotism "  on  the 
assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 


44  Official  Reports  of  the 

DOCTRINE  HELD  BY  GREELEY. 

On  the  9th  of  November,  1860,  Mr.  Horace  Greeley,  the  great 
apostle  of  the  Republican  party,  and  who  was  often  referred  to  dur 
ing  Mr.  Lincoln's  administration  as  the  "  power  behind  the  throne 
— greater  than  the  throne  itself  "—said  in  his  paper,  the  New  York 
Tribune : 

"  If  the  Cotton  States  consider  the  value  of  the  Union  debatable, 
we  maintain  their  perfect  right  to  discuss  it ;  nay,  we  hold  with  Jef 
ferson,  to  the  inalienable  right  of  communities  to  alter  or  abolish 
forms  of  government  that  have  become  oppressive  or  injurious; 
and  if  the  Cotton  States  decide  that  they  can  do  better  out  of  the 
Union  than  in  it,  we  insist  on  letting  them  go  in  peace.  The  right 
to  secede  may  be  a  revolutionary  one,  but  it  exists  nevertheless;  and 
we  do  not  see  how  one  party  can  have  a  right  to  do  what  another 
party  has  a  right  to  prevent." 

On  the  17th  of  December,  1860,  just  three  days  before  the  seces 
sion  of  South  Carolina,  he  again  said  in  the  Tribune : 

"  If  it  (the  Declaration  of  Independence  )  justified  the  secession 
from  the  British  Empire  of  three  millions  of  colonists  in  1776,  we 
do  not  see  why  it  would  not  justify  the  secession  of  five  millions  of 
Southrons  from  the  Federal  Union  in  1861.  If  we  are  mistaken  on 
this  point,  why  does  not  some  one  attempt  to  show  wherein  and 
why?" 

Again,  on  February  the  23rd,  1861,  five  days  after  the  inaugu 
ration  of  President  Davis  at  Montgomery,  he  said: 

"We  have  repeatedly  said,  and  we  once  more  insist,  that  the 
great  principle  embodied  by  Jefferson  in  the  Declaration  of  Ameri 
can  Independence — that  governments  derive  their  just  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed — is  sound  and  just,  and  if  the  Slave 
States,  the  Cotton  States,  or  the  Gulf  States  only,  choose  to  form 
an  independent  nation,  they  have  a  clear  moral  right  to  do  so." 

And  we  know  that  this  man  was  one  of  the  foremost  of  our  op 
pressors  during  the  war,  although  his  kindness  to  Mr.  Davis  and 
others  after  the  war,  we  think,  showed  that  he  knew  he  had  done 
wrong.  And  yet,  he  had  the  audacity  (and  may  we  not  justly  add 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  45 

mendacity,  too?)  to  say,  after  the  war,  that  he  never  at  any  mo 
ment  of  his  life  had  "  imagined  that  a  single  State,  or  a  dozen 
States,  could  rightfully  dissolve  the  Union."  Comment  is  surely 
unnecessary. 

On  November  the  9th,  I860,  the  New  York  Herald  said: 
"  Each  State  is  organized  as  a  complete  government,  holding  the 
purse  and  wielding  the  sword ;  possessing  the  right  to  break  the  tie 
of  the  confederation  as  a  nation  might  break  a  treaty,  and  to  repeJ 
coercion  as  a  nation  might  repel  invasion.  .  .  .  Coercion,  if  it 
were  possible,  is  out  of  the  question." 

Both  President  Buchanan  and  his  Attorney-General,  the  after 
wards  famous  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  decided  about  the  same  time  that 
there  was  no  power  under  the  Constitution  to  coerce"  a  seceding 
State. 

SENTIMENT  IN  THE   NORTH. 

But  this  "  Massachusetts  heresy/'  as  the  writer  before  quoted 
from  calls  the  right  of  secession,  was  not  only  entertained,  as  we 
have  shown,  at  the  North  before  the  war,  but  has  been  expressed  in 
the  same  section  in  no  uncertain  terms  long  since  the  war.  In  an 
article  by  Benjamin  J.  Williams,  Esq.,  a  distinguished  writer  of 
Massachusetts,  entitled  "  Died  for  Their  State,"  and  published  in 
the  Lowell  Sun  of  June  5th,  1886,  he  says,  among  other  things : 

"  When  the  original  thirteen  Colonies  threw  off  their  allegiance 
to  Great  Britain,  they  became  independent  States,  independent  of 
her  and  of  each  other."  ..."  The  recognition  was  of  the  States 
separately,  each  by  name,  in  the  treaty  of  peace  which  terminated 
the  war  of  the  Revolution.  And  that  this  separate  recognition  was 
deliberate  and  intentional,  with  the  distinct  object  of  recognizing 
the  States  as  separate  sovereignties,  and  not  as  one  nation,  will 
sufficiently  appear  by  reference  to  the  sixth  volume  of  Bancroft's 
History  of  the  United  States.  The  Articles  of  Confederation  be 
tween  the  States  declared,  that  'each  State  retains  its  sovereignty, 
freedom  and  independence.'  And  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  immediately  followed,  was  first  adopted  by  the  States 
in  convention,  each  State  acting  for  itself,  in  its  sovereign  and  in- 


46  Official  Reports  of  the 

dependent  capacity,  through  a  convention  of  its  people.  And  it 
was  by  this  ratification  that  the  Constitution  was  established,  to 
use  its  own  words,  'between  the  States  so  ratifying  the  same/  It  is 
then  a  compact  between  the  States  as  sovereigns,  and  the  Union 
created  by  it  is  a  federal  partnership  of  States,  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  being  their  common  agent  for  the  transaction  of  the  Fed 
eral  business  within  the  limits  of  the  delegated  powers." 

LAW   OF  CO-PARTNERSHIPS. 

This  able  writer  then  illustrates  the  compact  between  the  States 
by  the  principles  of  law  governing  ordinary  co-partnerships,  just  as 
Mr.  Webster  did.  And  he  then  says : 

"  Now,  if  a  partnership  between  persons  is  purely  voluntary,  and 
subject  to  the  will  of  its  members  severally,  how  much  more  so  is 
one  between  sovereign  States?  and  it  follows  that,  just  as  each, 
separately,  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  will,  entered  the  Union, 
so  may  it  separately,  in  the  exercise  of  that  will,  withdraw  there' 
from.  And  further,  the  Constitution  being  a  compact,  to  which  the 
States  are  parties,  'having  no  common  judge/  'each  party  has  an 
equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  infractions  as  of  the  mode 
of  measure  and  redress/  as  declared  by  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr. 
Madison  in  the  celebrated  resolutions  of  '98,  and  the  right  of  seces 
sion  irresistibly  follows/' 

"But  aside  from  the  doctrine  either  of  partnership  or  compact, 
upon  the  ground  of  State  sovereignty  pure  and  simple,  does  the 
right  of  secession  impregnably  rest/' 

We  have  quoted  thus  fully  from  this  writer  not  only  because  he 
is  a  Northern  man,  but  because  he  has  stated  both  the  facts  and 
the  principles  underlying  the  formation  of  the  Union,  and  the 
rights  of  the  States  therein,  with  an  accuracy,  clearness  and  force, 
that  cannot  be  surpassed. 

But  again:  In  his  life  of  Webster,  published  in  1899,  Mr.  Henry 
Cabot  Lodge,  from  whom  we  have  before  quoted,  and  who  is  at  this 
time  one  of  the  distinguished  senators  from  Massachusetts,  uses  this 
language  in  speaking  of  Mr.  Webster's  reply  to  Mr.  Hayne.  He  says : 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  47 

"  The  weak  places  in  his  (Webster's)  armor  were  historical  in 
their  nature.  It  was  probably  necessary  (at  all  events  Mr.  Webster 
felt  it  to  be  so)  to  argue  that  the  Constitution  at  the  outset  was  not 
a  compact  between  the  States,  but  a  national  instrument,  and  to 
distinguish  the  cases  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky  in  1799,  and  of 
New  England  in  1814,  from  that  of  South  Carolina  in  1830.  The 
former  point  he  touched  upon  lightly ;  the  latter  he  discussed  ably, 
eloquently  and  at  length.  Unfortunately  the  facts  were  against  him 
in  both  instances" 

And  in  this  connection,  Mr.  Lodge  then  uses  this  language: 

"  When  the  Constitution  was  adopted  by  the  votes  of  the  States 
at  Philadelphia,  and  accepted  by  the  votes  of  the  States  in  popular 
convention,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  there  was  not  a  man  in  the  coun 
try,  from  Washington  and  Hamilton  on  the  one  side  to  George 
Clinton  and  George  Mason  on  the  other,  who  regarded  the  new  sys 
tem  as  anything  but  an  experiment  entered  into  by  the  States,  and 
from  which  each  nd  eaery  State  had  the  right  peaceably  to  with 
draw — a  right  which  was  very  likely  to  be  exercised" 

Mr.  James  C.  Carter,  now  of  New  York,  but  a  native  of  New 
England,  and  perhaps  the  most  distinguished  lawyer  in  this  coun 
try  to-day,  in  a  speech  delivered  by  him  at  the  University  of  Vir 
ginia,  in  1898,  said: 

"  I  may  hazard  the  opinion  that  if  the  question  had  been  made, 
not  in  1860,  but  in  1788,  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  whether  the  Union  as  formed  by  that  instrument 
could  lawfully  treat  the  secession  of  a  State  as  rebellion,  and  sup 
press  it  by  force,  few  of  those  who  participated  in  forming  that  in 
strument  would  have  answered  in  the  affirmative." 

NORTH'S  ATTITUDE  SINCE  THE  WAR. 

And  we  should  never  forget  this  pregnant  and,  we  think,  conclu 
sive  fact  in  regard  to  this  question,  namely:  the  conduct  of  the 
North  after  the  war  in  regard  to  Mr.  Davis,  General  Lee,  and  others 
of  our  leaders.  As  is  well  known,  Mr.  Davis  was  indicted  three 
times  in  their  own  courts  upon  charges  which  directly  and  neces 
sarily  involved  a  decision  of  the  right  of  a  State  to  secede  from  the 


48  Official  Reports  of  the 

Union.  Immediately  on  the  finding  of  these  indictments,  he 
(through  his  eminent  Northern  as  well  as  Southern  counsel)  ap 
peared  at  the  bar  of  the  court  and  demanded  a  speedy  trial,  in  order 
that  he  might  judicially  vindicate  his  course  and  that  of  his  people 
before  the  world.  This  right  of  trial  was  postponed  by  the  Fed 
eral  Government  for  nearly  three  years.  During  two  of  these  years, 
he  was  confined  in  a  casemate  at  Fortress  Monroe  and  subjected 
to  indignities  and  tortures,  by  which  it  was  attempted  to  break  the 
spirit  of  the  distinguished  captive ;  and  at  the  same  time  to  degrade 
the  people  whom  he  represented,  and  for  whom  he  was  a  vicarious 
sufferer.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  that  this  conduct  is  to-day 
universally  regarded  as  not  only  unworthy  of  the  representatives 
of  the  government  which  held  Mr.  Davis  as  its  prisoner,  but  that 
it  has  made  a  page  in  its  history  of  which  it  ought  to  be,  and  we  be 
lieve  is,  ashamed. 

When  at  last  the  Government  consented  to  try  the  case,  it  declined 
to  meet  the  question  involved,  in  its  own  chosen  tribunal;  and 
having  been  advised  by  the  best  lawyers  and  statesmen  at  the  North 
that  the  decision  must  be  against  the  North  and  in  favor  of  the 
South,  in  order  to  evade  the  issue,  Chief  Justice  (Chase)  himself 
suggested  a  technical  bar  to  the  prosecution,  which  was  adopted  and 
the  cases  dismissed.  The  South  was  entirely  in  the  power  of  the 
North,  and  could  do  nothing  but  accept  this,  their  own  confes 
sion  that  they  were  wrong  and  that  the  South  was  right. 

CRUEL,  WICKED,  RELENTLESS  WAR. 

And  so  we  say,  our  comrades,  that  just  because  the  States  of  the 
South  did,  in  the  most  regular  and  deliberate  way,  exercise  their 
constitutional  and  legal  right  to  withdraw  from  a  compact  which 
they  had  never  violated,  but  which  the  Northern  States  had  con 
fessedly  violated  time  and  again,  a  right  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  not  only  recognized  by  the  leading  statesmen  of  the  North,  but 
which  it  had  threatened  on  several  occasions  to  put  into  execution — 
we  say,  just  because  the  Southern  States  did  take  this  perfectly 
legal  step  in  a  legal  way,  these  same  people  of  the  North, 
with  Abraham  Lincoln  as  their  head,  proceeded,  as  we  shall  pres- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  49 

ently  show,  without  warrant  of  law  or  justice,  to  inaugurate  and 
wage  against  the  South  one  of  the  most  cruel,  wicked  and  relent 
less  wars  of  which  history  furnishes  any  record  or  parallel.  Is 
there  wonder,  then,  that  the  representatives  of  the  Grand  Army 
of  the  Eepublic  would  have  us  be  silent  about  the  facts  which 
we  have  referred  to,  and  not  teach  the  truths  of  this  history  to  our 
children,  when  we  thus  condemn  them  out  of  their  own  mouths? 

But  we  come  now  to  consider,  who  were  the  aggressors  who  in 
augurated  this  wicked  war? 

We  think  it  important  to  make  this  inquiry,  for  the  reasons 
already  given,  and  besause  we  apprehend  there  is  a  common  impres 
sion  that  inasmuch  as  the  South  fierd  the  first  gun  at  Fort  Sumter, 
it  really  thereby  brought  on  the  war,  and  was  hence  responsible  for 
the  direful  consequences  which  followed  the  firing  of  that  first  shot. 
Nothing  could  ~be  further  from  the  truth.  Mr.  Hallam,  in  his 
Constitutional  History  of  England,  states  a  universally  recognized 
principle,  when  he  says : 

.     "  The  aggressor  in  a  war  (that  is,  he  who  begins  it)  is  not  the 
]first  who  uses  force,  but  the  first  who  renders  force  necessary/' 

Now  which  side,  according  to  this  high  authority,  was  the  aggres 
sor  in  this  conflict  ?  Which  side  was  it  that  rendered  the  first  blow 


necessary  1 


WHAT  MR.  STEPHENS  SAYS. 


Says  Mr.  Stephens,  in  his  "  War  Between  the  States  " :  "I  main 
tain  that  it  (the  war)  was  inaugurated  and  begun,  though  no  blow 
had  been  struck,  when  the  hostile  fleet,  styled  the  "  Eelief  Squad 
ron/'  with  eleven  ships  carrying  two  hundred  and  eighty-five  guns 
and  two  thousand  four  hundred  men,  was  sent  out  from  New  York 
and  Norfolk,  with  orders  from  the  authorities  at  Washington  to 
reinforce  Fort  Sumter,  peaceably  if  permitted,  but  forcibly  if  they 
must." 

He  further  says : 

"  The  war  was  then  and  there  inaugurated  and  begun  by  the 
authorities  at  Washington.  General  Beauregard  did  not  open  fire 
upon  Fort  Sumter  until  this  fleet  was  to  his  knowledge,  very  near 


50  Official  Reports  of  the 

the  Harbor  of  Charleston,  and  until  he  had  enquired  of  Major 
Anderson,  in  command  of  the  Fort,  whether  he  would  engage  to 
take  no  part  in  the  expected  blow,  then  coming  down  upon  him 
from  the  approaching  fleet?" 

Governor  Pickens  and  General  Beauregard  had  been  notified  from 
Washington  of  the  approach  of  this  fleet,  and  the  objects  for  which 
it  was  sent,  but  this  notice  did  not  reach  them  (owing  to  the 
treachery  and  duplicity  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Seward,  practiced 
on  the  Commissioners  sent  to  Washington  by  the  Confederate  Gov 
ernment,  which,  are  enough  to  bring  the  blush  of  shame  to  the  cheek 
of  every  American  citizen,)  until  the  fleet  had  neared  its  destina 
tion.  But  Anderson  refused  to  make  any  promise,  and  when  he 
did  this,  it  became  necessary  for  Beauregard  to  reduce  the  fort  as  he 
did.  Otherwise  his  command  would  have  been  exposed  to  two 
fires —  one  in  front  and  the  other  in  the  rear. 

SEWARDS  TREACHERY  AND  DUPLICITY. 

I  wish  I  had  the  time  to  give  here  the  details  of  this  miserable 
treachery  and  duplicity  practiced  on  the  Confederate  Commissioners 
by  Mr.  Seward,  with,  as  he  says,  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 
These  gentlemen  had  been  sent  to  Washington,  as  they  stated  in 
their  letter  to  Mr.  Seward,  to  treat  with  him,  "  with  a  view  to  a 
speedy  adjustment  of  all  questions  growing  out  of  this  political 
separation,  upon  such  terms  of  amity  and  good  will  as  the  respec 
tive  interests,  geographical  contiguity  and  future  welfare  of  the 
two  nations  may  render  necessary." 

I  can  only  state  that  although  Mr.  Seward  refused  to  treat  with  the 
Commissioners  directly,  he  did  so  through  the  medium  of  Justices 
Campbell  and  Nelson,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ; 
that  through  these  intermediaries  the  Commissioners  were  given  to 
understand  that  Fort  Sumter  would  be  evacuated  within  a  few  days, 
and  they  were  kept  under  that  impression  up  to  the  7th  of  April, 
1861,  although  during  that  interval  of  twenty-three  days  the 
" Relief  Squadron"  was  being  put  in  readiness  for  reinforcing 
Sumter.  And  even  on  that  date  (the  day  after  the  Squadron  was 
ordered  to  sail)  Mr.  Seward  wrote  Judge  Campbell,  "Faith  as  to 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  51 

Sumter  fully  kept;  wait  and  see"  when  he  must  have  known  that 
nothing  was  further  from  the  truth,  and  as  events  then  transpiring 
conclusively  showed.  Judge  Campbell  wrote  two  letters  to  Mr. 
Seward,  setting  out  all  the  details  of  the  deception  practiced  on  the 
Commissioners  through  him  and  Justice  Nelson,,  and  asked  an 
explanation  of  his  conduct.  But  no  explanation  was  ever  given, 
simply  because  there  was  none  that  could  be  given.  And  Mr. 
Seward's  own  memorandum,  made  by  him  at  the  time,  shows  that 
he  was  acting  all  through  this  matter  with  the  knowledge  and  ap 
proval  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  History  affords  but  few  parallels,  if  any, 
to  such  base  conduct  on  the  part  of  those  occupying  the  high  and 
responsible  positions  then  held  by  these  men.  The  only  excuse  that 
can  be  given  for  this  conduct,  is  that  they  regarded  it  as  a  legitimate 
deception  to  practice  in  a  war  which  they  had  then  already  inaugu 
rated. 

LINCOLN"   ADMINISTRATION   RESPONSIBLE. 

Mr.  George  Lunt  of  Massachusetts,  in  speaking  of  the  occurrences 
at  Fort  Sumter,  uses  this  cautiously  framed  language,  as  the  ques 
tion  of  which  side  commenced  the  war  is  one  about  which  the  North 
is  very  sensitive.  As  we  know,  on  the  7th  of  April,  1861,  President 
Davis  said : 

"  With  the  Lincoln  administration  rests  the  responsibility  of  pre 
cipitating  a  collision  and  the  fearful  evils  of  protracted  civil  war." 

And  so  Mr.  Lunt  says : 

"Whether  the  appearance  of  this  fleet  (the  Eelief  Squadron) 
under  the  circumstances  could  be  considered  a  pacific  or  hostile  de 
monstration  may  be  left  to  inference.  Whether  its  total  inaction  du 
ring  the  fierce  bombardment  of  the  fort  and  its  defenses  continued 
for  days,  and  until  its  final  surrender,  justly  bears  the  aspect  of  an 
intention  to  avoid  the  charge  of  aggression,  and  to  give  the  whole 
affair  the  appearance  of  defense  merely,  may  also  be  referred  to  the 
judgment  of  the  reader." 

The  question  also  occurs,  he  says — 

"  Whether  this  sudden  naval  demonstration  was  not  a  palpable 
violation  of  the  promised  '  faith  as  to  Sumter  fully  kept/  as  to  6 e 


52  Official  Reports  of  the 

an  unmistakable  menace  of  'aggression/  if  not  absolute  aggression 
itself." 

And  he  further  says : 

"  It  should  also  be  considered  that  when  the  fleet  came  to  anchor 
off  Charleston  bar,  it  was  well  known  that  many  other  and  larger 
vessels  of  war,,  attended  by  transports  containing  troops  and  surf 
boats,  and  all  the  necessary  means  of  landing  forces,  had  already 
sailed  from  Northern  ports — tf  destination  unknown ' — and  that 
very  considerable  time  must  have  been  requisite  to  get  this  expedi 
tion  ready  for  sea,  during  the  period  that  assurances  had  been  so 
repeatedly  given  of  the  evacuation  of  the  fort. 

"  It  bore  the  aspect  certainly  of  a  manoeuvre,  which  military 
persons,  and  sometimes,  metaphorically,  politicians,  denominate 
1  stealing  a  march/ '' 

He  says  further  on : 

"  It  was  intended  to  '  draw  the  fire '  of  the  Confederates,  and  was 
a  silent  aggression,  with  the  object  of  producing  an  active  aggres 
sion  from  the  other  side." 

This  very  cautious  statement  from  this  Northern  writer,  clearly 
makes  the  Lincoln  Government  the  REAL  AGGRESSOR,  under  the 
principle  before  enunciated  by  Mr.  Hallam. 

Mr.  Williams,  the  Massachusetts  writer  before  quoted  from,  says : 

"  There  was  no  need  for  war.  The  action  of  the  Southern  States 
was  legal  and  constitutional,  and  history  will  attest  that  it  was 
reluctantly  taken  in  the  last  extremity,  in  the  hope  of  thereby  sav 
ing  their  whole  constitutional  rights  and  liberties  from  destruction 
by  Northern  aggression,  which  had  just  culminated  in  triumph  at 
the  Presidential  election  by  the  union  of  the  North  against  the 
South." 

And  he  says  further  on : 

"  The  South  was  invaded,  and  a  war  of  subjugation,  destined  to 
be  the  most  gigantic  which  the  world  has  ever  seen  was  begun  by 
the  Federal  Government  against  the  seceding  States,  in  complete 
and  amazing  disregard  of  the  foundation  principle  of  its  own  exist 
ence,  as  affirmed  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that  'Govern 
ments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed/ 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  53 

and  as  established  by  the  war  of  the  Revolution  for  the  people  of 
the  States  respectively.  The  South  accepted  the  contest  thus  forced 
upon  her,  with  the  eager  and  resolute  courage  characteristic  of  her 
proud-spirited  people." 

But  I  propose  to  show  further  that  this  war  did  not  really  begin 
with  the  sailing  of  that  Northern  fleet,  and  certainly  not  at  Fort 
Sumter;  and  that  the  first  blow  was  actually  struck  by  John  Brown 
and  his  followers,  as  the  representatives  of  the  abolitionists  of  the 
North,  in  October,  1859,  at  Harper's  Ferry,  Va. 

THE   JOHN   BROWN   RAID. 

A  Northern  writer  says  of  the  "  John  Brown  Raid  " : 

"  Of  course,  a  transaction  so  flagitious,  with  its  attendant  circum 
stances,  affording  such  unmistakable  proof  of  the  spirit  by  which  no 
small  portion  of  the  Northern  population  was  actuated,  could  not 
but  produce  the  profoundest  impression  upon  the  people  of  the 
South.  Here  was  an  open  and  armed  aggression,  whether  clearly 
understood  and  encouraged  beforehand,  certainly  exulted  in  after 
wards,  by  persons  of  a  very  different  standing  from  that  of  the 
chief  actor  in  this  bloody  incursion  into  a  peaceful  State." 

John  Brown  and  his  associates  did  attempt  insurrection,  and 
did  commit  murder  in  that  attempt,  upon  the  peaceful,  harmless 
citizens  of  Virginia,  and  he  expiated  these,  among  the  highest 
crimes  known  to  the  law,  upon  a  felon's  gallows.  How  was  that 
execution  received  at  the  North  ?  And  in  what  way  did  the  repre 
sentatives  of  the  Republican  party  endorse  and  adopt  as  their  own 
the  conduct  of  this  felon  in  his  outrages,  his  "  first  blow  "  struck 
against  the  South?  We  will  let  the  same  Northern  writer  tell. 
He  says: 

"  In  the  tolling  of  bells  and  the  firing  of  minute  guns  upon  the 
occasion  of  Brown's  funeral;  the  meeting-houses  were  draped  in 
mourning  as  for  a  hero;  the  prayers  offered;  the  sermons  and  dis 
courses  pronounced  in  his  honor  as  for  a  saint." 

Two  of  Brown's  accomplices  were  fugitives  from  justice,  one  in 
the  State  of  Ohio,  and  the  other  in  that  of  Iowa.  Requisitions  were 


54  Official  Reports  of  the 

issued  for  them  by  the  Governor  of  Virginia;  and  the  Governor  of 
each  of  these  Northern  States  refused  to  surrender  the  criminal, 
thus  making  themselves,  and  the  people  they  represented,  to  a  de 
gree  at  least,  particeps  criminis.  And  the  newspapers  have  recently 
informed  us  that  the  present  Chief  Magistrate  of  this  nation,  and 
the  head  of  the  same  party,  which  deified  John  Brown,  and  approved 
of  his  crimes,  has  visited  and  stood  "  uncovered  "  at  his  grave,  as  if 
he  still  recognized  him  as  the  "forerunner"  of  him  whom  they 
term  the  "  Savior  of  the  Country " ;  so  we  regard,  and  rightly 
regard,  his  attempted  insurrection,  as  the  legitimate  forerunner  of 
the  cruel,  illegal  and  unjustifiable  war,  inaugurated  and  waged  by 
Mr.  Lincoln  against  the  South. 

AGGRESSIONS    OF   THE    NORTH. 

But  we  advance  still  a  step  further  in  the  argument,  to  show  from 
Northern  authorities  alone  still  other  aggressions  of  the  North 
against  the  South,  in  'bringing  on  this  war.  In  his  speech,  entitled 
"Under  the  Flag,"  delivered  in  Boston,  April  21st,  1861,  Wendell 
Phillips  used  this  language,  which  we  are  persuaded,  is  the  opinion 
of  many  misinformed  people  to-day,  both  at  the  North  and  at  the 
South.  He  says : 

"  For  thirty  years  the  North  has  exhausted  conciliation  and  com 
promise.  They  have  tried  every  expedient;  they  have  relinquished 
every  right,  they  have  sacrificed  every  interest,  they  have  smothered 
keen  sensibility  to  natinal  honor,  and  Northern  weight  and  suprem 
acy  in  the  Union;  have  forgotten  they  were  the  majority  in  num 
bers  and  in  wealth,  in  education  and  in  strength ;  have  left  the  helm 
of  government  and  the  dictation  of  policy  to  the  Southern  States/3 
&c. 

We  propose  to  show,  from  the  highest  Northern  sources,  that  so 
far  from  the  above  statement  being  true,  it  is  exactly  the  opposite 
of  the  truth. 

Gen'l  John  A.  Logan,  afterwards  a  Major-General  in  the  Federal 
Army,  a  United  States  Senator  and  a  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presi 
dency  on  the  Republican  ticket,  in  a  speech  delivered  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  on  the  5th  of  February,  1861,  uses  this  language : 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  55 

"  The  Abolitionists  of  the  North  have  constantly  warred  upon 
Southern  institutions,  by  incessant  abuse  from  the  pulpit,  from  the 
press,  on  the  stump,  and  in  the  halls  of  Congress  denouncing  them 
as  a  sin  against  God  and  man  ...  By  these  denunciations  and 
lawless  acts  on  the  part  of  Abolition  fanatics  such  results  have  been 
produced  as  to  drive  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  to  a  sleep 
less  vigilance  for  the  protection  of  their  property  and  the  preserva 
tion  of  their  rights." 

The  Albany  Argus  of  November  10th,  1860,  said: 
"  "We  sympathize  with,  and  justify  the  South  as  far  as  this :  their 
rights  have  been  invaded  to  the  extreme  limit  possible  within  the 
forms  of  the  Constitution;  and  beyond  this  limit,  their  feelings 
have  been  insulted,  and  their  interests  and  honor  assailed  by  almost 
every  possible  form  of  denunciation  and  invective ;  and  if  we  deemed 
it  certain  that  the  real  animous  of  the  Eepublican  party  could  be 
carried  into  the  administration  of  the  Federal  Government,  and 
become  the  permanent  policy  of  the  nation,  we  should  think  that 
all  the  instincts  of  self-preservation  and  of  manhood,  rightly 
impelled  them  to  resort  to  revolution  and  a  separation  from  the 
Union,  and  we  would  applaud  them,  and  wish  them  God-speed  in 
the  adoption  of  such  a  remedy." 

The  Eochester  Union,  two  or  three  days  later,  said : 
"  Restricting  our  remarks  to  actual  violations  of  the  Constitution, 
the  North  has  led  the  way,  and  for  a  long  period  has  been  the  sole 
offender  or  aggressor."  .  .  .  "  Owing  to  their  peculiar  circum 
stances,  the  Southern  States  cannot  retaliate  upon  the  North 
without  taking  ground  for  secession/' 

STARTED  BY  MR.  SEAWARD. 

The  New  York  Express  said,  on  April  15th,  1861,  (the  day  after 
the  surrender  of  Sumter)  : 

"The  ( Irrepressible  conflict'  started  by  Mr.  Seward,  and 
endorsed  by  the  Republican  party,  has  at  length  attained  to  its 
logical  foreseen  result.  That  conflict  undertaken  f  for  the  sake  of 
humanity'  culminates  now  in  inhumanity  itself."  .  .  .  "The 
people  of  the  United  States,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  petitioned, 
begged  and  implored  these  men  (Lincoln,  Seward,  et  id),  who  are 


56  Official  Reports  of  the 

become  their  accidental  masters.,  to  give  them  an  opportunity  to 
be  heard  before  this  unnatural  strife  was  pushed  to  a  bloody  extreme, 
but  there  petitions  were  all  spurned  with  contempt"  &c. 

Mr.  George  Lunt,  a  Boston  lawyer,  in  an  able  work,  published  in 
1866,  entitled  "  The  Origin  of  the  Late  War,"  from  which  we  have 
before  quoted,  says  of  the  action  of  the  Northern  people : 

"  But  by  incessantly  working  on  the  popular  mind,  through  every 
channel  through  which  it  could  be  possibly  reached,  a  state  of  feeling 
was  produced  which  led  to  the  enactment  of  Personal  Liberty  bills 
by  one  after  another  of  the  Northern  Legislative  Assemblies.  At 
length  fourteen  of  the  sixteen  Free  States  had  provided  statutes 
which  rendered  any  attempt  to  execute  the  fugitive  slave  act  so 
difficult  as  to  be  practically  impossible,  and  placed  each  of  those 
States  in  an  attitude  of  virtual  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the  United 
States." 

If  these  acts  were  not  nullification,  what  were  they  ? 

LINCOLN  QUOTED  AS  PROOF. 

We  propose  to  introduce  as  our  last  piece  of  evidence  that  which 
it  seems  to  us  should  satisfy  the  mind  of  the  most  critical  and 
exacting,  and  which  establishes,  beyond  all  future  cavil,  which  side 
was  the  aggressor  in  bringing  on  this  conflict.  We  propose  now  to 
introduce  Mr.  Lincoln  himself.  In  the  latest  life  of  this  remarkable 
man,  written  by  Ida  M.  Tarbell,  and  published  by  Doubleday  & 
McClure  Co.  in  1900,  she  introduces  a  statement  made  to  her  by  the 
late  Joseph  Medill,  editor  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  of  what  took 
place  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  a  Committee  of  which  he  (Medill) 
was  a  member,  sent  from  Chicago  to  Washington,  to  intercede  with 
the  authorities  there  to  be  relieved  from  sending  more  troops  from 
Cook  county,  as  was  required  by  the  new  draft  just  then  ordered,  and 
which,  as  we  know  produced  riots  in  several  parts  of  the  North.  The 
author  makes  Medill  tell  how  his  Committee  first  applied  for  relief 
to  Mr.  Stanton,  and  was  refused,  how  they  then  went  to  Mr.  Lincoln, 
who  went  with  them  to  see  Stanton  again,  and  there  listened  to  the 
reasons  assigned  pro  and  con  for  a  change  of  the  draft.  He  then 
says: 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  57 

"  I  shall  never  forget  how  he  (Lincoln)  suddenly  lifted  his  head 
and  turned  on  us  a  black  and  frowning  face : 

"  'Gentlemen/  he  said,  in  a  voice  full  of  bitterness,,  'After  Boston, 
Chicago  has  been  the  chief  instrument  in  bringing  this  war  on  the 
country.  The  Northwest  has  opposed  the  South,  as  New  England 
has  opposed  the  South.  It  is  you  who  are  largely  responsible  for 
making  blood  flow  as  it  has.  You  called  for  war  until  we  had  it. 
You  called  for  emancipation,,  and  I  have  given  it  to  you.  What 
ever  you  have  asked,  you  have  had.  Now  you  come  here  begging  to 
be  let  off.  You  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  yourselves.  I  have  a  right 
to  expect  better  things  of  you.  Go  home  and  raise  your  6,000 
extra  men/  * 

And  Medill  adds  that  he  was  completely  silenced  by  the  truth  of 
Lincoln's  accusation,  and  that  they  went  home  and  raised  the  6,000 
additional  troops.  We  could  multiply  testimony  of  this  kind  al 
most  indifinitely ;  but  surely  we  have  introduced  enough  not  only 
to  prove  that  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Phillips  is  utterly  without 
foundation,  but  to  show  further,  by  the  testimony  of  our  quondam 
enemies  themselves,  that  they  were  the  aggressors  from  every  point 
of  view,  and  that  the  South  only  resisted  when,  as  the  New  York 
Express  said  of  it  at  the  time,  it  had,  "  in  self-preservation,  been 
driven  to  the  wall,  and  forced  to  proclaim  its  independence.'' 

VIRGINIA'S  EFFORTS  FOR  PEACE. 

We  can  only  briefly  allude  to  the  noble  efforts  made  by  Virginia, 
through  the  "  Peace  Congress,"  to  avert  the  conflict,  and  how  these 
efforts  were  rejected  almost  with  contempt  by  the  North.  Mr. 
Lunt,  speaking  of  this  noble  action  on  the  part  of  the  "  Mother  of 
Presidents,"  as  he  calls  Virginia,  says : 

"  It  was  like  a  firebrand  suddenly  presented  at  the  portals  of  the 
Republican  Magazine,  and  the  whole  energy  of  the  radicals  was  at 
once  enlisted  to  make  it  of  no  effect." 

Several  of  the  Northern  States  sent  no  Commissioners  to  this 
Congress  at  all;  others,  like  Massachusetts,  only  sent  them  at  the 
last  moment,  and  then  sent  only  such  as  were  known  to  be  opposed 
to  any  compromise  or  conciliation. 


58  Official  Reports  of  the 

The  following  letter  of  Senator  Chandler,  of  Michigan,  indicates 
too  clearly  the  feelings  of  the  Republican  party  at  that  time  to 
require  comment.  It  is  dated  February  llth,  1861,  a  week  after 
Congress  assembled,  and  addressed  to  the  Governor  of  his  State. 
He  says : 

"  Governor  Bingham  (the  other  Senator  from  Michigan)  and  my 
self  telegraphed  to  you  on  Saturday  at  the  request  of  Massachusetts 
and  New  York,  to  send  delegates  to  the  Peace  Compromise  Con 
gress.  They  admit  that  we  were  right  and  they  were  wrong,  that  no 
Republican  State  should  have  sent  delegates;  but  they  are  here  and 
can't  get  away.  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Rhode  Island  are  caving  in, 
and  there  is  some  danger  of  Illinois ;  and  now  they  beg  us,  for  God's 
sake  to  come  to  their  rescue  and  save  the  Republican  party  from 
rupture.  I  hope  you  will  send  stiff-backed  men  or  none.  The 
whole  thing  was  gotten  up  against  my  judgment  and  advice,  and 
will  end  in  thin  smoke.  Still  I  hope  as  a  matter  of  courtesy  to 
some  of  our  erring  brethren,  that  you  will  send  the  delegates. 
"  Truly  your  friend, 

"  Z.  CHANDLER/' 

"His  Excellency,  Austin  Blair." 

"  P.  S. — Some  of  the  Manufacturing  States  think  that  a  fight 
would  be  awful.  Without  a  little  blood-letting  this  Union  will 
not,  in  my  estimation,  be  worth  a  curse" 

Mr.  Lunt  says : 

"  If  this  truly  eloquent  and  statesmanlike  epistle  does  not  express 
the  views  of  the  Republican  managers  at  the  time,  it  does  at  least 
indicate  with  sufficient  clearness  their  relations  towards  the  '  Peace 
Conference '  and  the  determined  purpose  of  the  radicals  to  have 
'  a  fight/  and  it  furthermore  foreshadows  the  actual  direction  given 
to  future  events." 

HELD   OUT   TO    THE   LAST. 

But  I  cannot  protract  this  discussion  further.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
that  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee  and  Arkansas  did  not 
secede  until  Mr.  Lincoln  had  actually  declared  war  against  the 
seven  Cotton  and  Gulf  States,  then  forming  the  Southern  Confed- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  59 

eracy,  and  called  on  these  four  States  to  furnish  their  quota  of  the 
seventy-five  thousand  troops  called  for  by  him  to  coerce  these  States. 
This  act,,  on  Mr.  Lincoln's  part,,  was  without  any  real  authority  of 
law,  and  nothing  short  of  the  most  flagrant  usurpation,  Congress 
alone  having  the  power  to  declare  war  under  the  Constitution.  He 
refused  to  convene  Congress  to  consider  the  grave  issues  then  con 
fronting  the  country.  When  it  did  assemble,  on  the  4th  of 
July,  1861,  he  tried  to  have  his  illegal  usurpation  validated;  but 
Congress,  although  then  having  a  Republican  majority,  refused  to 
consider  the  resolution  introduced  for  that  purpose.  The  four 
States  above  named,  led  by  Virginia,  only  left  the  union  then,  after 
exhausting  every  honorable  effort  to  remain  in  it,  and  only  when 
they  had  to  determine  to  fight  with  or  against  their  sisters  of  the 
South.  This  was  the  dire  alternative  presented  to  them,  and  how 
could  they  hesitate  longer  what  to  do? 

In  the  busy,  bustling,  practical  times  in  which  we  live,  it  will 
doubtless  be  asked  by  many,  and,  with  some  show  of  plausibility, 
why  we  gather  up,  and  present  to  the  world,  all  this  array  of  testi 
mony  concerning  a  cause  which  is  almost  universally  known  as  the 
"lost  cause,"  and  a  conflict  which  ended  more  than  thirty-five 
years  ago  ?  Does  it  not,  they  ask,  only  tend  to  rekindle  the  embers 
of  sectional  strife,  and  thus  can  only  do  harm  ?  You,  our  comrades, 
know  that  such  is  not  our  purpose  or  desire.  Our  reasons  have  been 
very  briefly  stated.  It  is  the  truth  that  constrains.  The  apologists 
for  the  North,  using  all  the  vehicles  of  falsehood,  are  insistent  in 
spreading  the  poison;  with  it  the  antidote  must  go.  If  others 
attribute  to  us  wrong  motives  in  this  matter,  we  are  sorry,  but  we 
have  no  apologies  to  make  to  any  such.  We  admit  that  the  Confed 
erate  war  is  ended ;  that  slavery  and  secession  are,  forever  dead,  and 
we  have  no  desire  to  revive  them.  We  recognize,  too,  that  this 
whole  country  is  one  country  and  our  country.  We  desire  that, 
government  and  people  doing  that  which  is  right,  it  may  become  in 
truth  a  glorious  land,  and  may  remain  a  glorious  inheritance  to 
our  children  and  our  children's  children.  But  we  believe  the  true 
way  to  preserve  it  as  such  an  inheritance  is  to  perpetuate  in  it  the 
principles  for  which  the  Confederate  soldier  fought — the  principles 


60  Official  Reports  of  the 

of  Constitutional  liberty,  and  of  local  self  government —  or,  as  Mr. 
Davis  puts  it,  "  the  rights  of  their  sires  won  in  the  Kevolution,  the 
State  sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence,  which  were  left  to  us, 
as  an  inheritance,  and  to  their  posterity  forever."  This  definition,  a 
distinguished  Massachusetts  writer  says,  is  "the  whole  case,  and 
not  only  a  statement,  but  a  complete  justification  of  the  Confederate 
cause,  to  all  who  are  acquainted  with  the  origin  and  character  of  the 
American  Union." 

Yes,  we  repeat,  this  is  our  country,  and  of  it,  we  would  say,  with 
Virginia's  dead  Laureate  at  the  Yorktown  celebration : 

"  Give  us  back  the  ties  of  Yorktown, 

Perish  all  the  modern  hates, 
Let  us  stand  together,  brothers, 

In  defiance  of  the  Pates, 
For  the  safety  of  the  Union 

Is  the  safety  of  the  States." 

At  Appomattox,  the  Confederate  flag  was  furled,  and  we  are  con 
tent  to  let  it  stay  so  forever.  There  is  enough  of  glory  and  sacrifice 
encircled  in  its  folds,  not  only  to  enshrine  it  in  our  hearts  forever ; 
but  the  very  trump  of  fame  must  be  silenced  when  it  ceases  to  pro 
claim  the  splendid  achievements  over  which  that  flag  floated. 

BATTLE-FIELD,   NOT   A   FORUM. 

But  Appomattox  was  not  a  judicial  forum;  it  was  only  a  battle 
field,  a  test  of  physical  force,  where  the  starving  remnant  of  the 
Army  of  Northern  Virginia,  "  wearied  with  victory,"  surrendered  to 
"  overwhelming  numbers  and  resources."  We  make  no  appeal  from 
that  judgment,  on  the  issue  of  force.  But  when  we  see  the  victors 
in  that  contest,  meeting  year  by  year  and  using  the  superior  means 
at  their  command,  to  publish  to  the  world,  that  they  were  right  and 
that  we  were  wrong  in  that  contest,  saying  that  we  were  "  Eebels  " 
and  "  traitors,"  in  defending  our  homes  and  firesides  against  their 
cruel  invasion,  that  we  had  no  legal  right  to  withdraw  from  the 
Union,  when  we  only  asked  to  be  let  alone,  and  charge  that  we  brought 
on  that  war ;  we  say,  when  these,  and  other  wicked  and  false  charges 
are  brought  against  us  from  year  to  year,  and  the  attempt  is  systema- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  61 

tically  made  to  teach  our  children  that  these  things  are  true,  and, 
therefore,  that  we  do  not  deserve  their  sympathy  and  respect 
because  of  our  alleged  wicked  and  unjustifiable  course  in  that  war 
and  in  bringing  it  on — then  it  becomes  our  duty,  not  only  to  our 
selves  and  to  our  children,  but  to  the  thousands  of  brave  men  and 
women  who  gave  their  lives  a  "  free-will  offering  "  in  defence  of 
the  principles  for  which  we  fought,  to  vindicate  the  justice  of  our 
cause,  and  to  do  this,  we  have  to  appeal  only  to  the  bar  of  truth  and 
of  justice. 

THE   TRUTH   WILL   LIVE. 

We  know  the  Muse  of  History  may  be,  and  often  is,  startled  from 
her  propriety  for  a  time;  but  she  will  soon  regain  her  equipoise. 
Our  late  enemy  has  unwittingly  furnished  the  great  reservoir  from 
which  the  truth  can  be  drawn,  not  only  in  what  they  have  said  about 
us  and  our  cause,  both  before  and  since  the  war;  but  in  the  more 
than  one  hundred  volumes  of  the  official  records  published  under 
the  authority  of  Congress.  We  are  content  to  await,  "  with  calm 
confidence,"  the  results  of  the  appeal  to  these  sources. 

We  have,  as  already  stated  in  this  report,  attempted  to  vindicate 
our  cause,  by  referring  to  testimony  furnished  almost  entirely  from 
the  speeches  and  writings  of  our  adversaries,  both  before  and  since 
the  war.  We  believe  we  have  succeeded  in  doing  this.  Nay,  the 
judgment,  both  of  the  justice  of  our  cause,  and  the  conduct  of  the 
war,  on  our  part,  has  been  written  for  us,  and  that  too  by  the  hand 
of  a  Massachusetts  man.  He  says  of  us : 

"  Such  exalted  character  and  achievement  are  not  all  in  vain. 
Though  the  Confederacy  fell  as  an  actual  physical  power,  she  lives 
illustrated  by  them,  eternally  in  her  just  cause — the  cause  of  Consti 
tutional  liberty." 

Then,  in  the  language  of  Virginia's  Laureate  again,  we  say : 

"  Then  stand  up,  oh  my  countrymen, 

And  unto  God  give  thanks 
On  mountains  and  on  hillsides 

And  by  sloping  river  banks, 
Thank  God,  that  you  were  worthy 

Of  the  grand  Confederate  ranks." 


62  Official  Reports  of  the 

Since  your  last  year's  Eeport  was  mainly  directed  to  the  vindica 
tion  of  our  people  from  the  false  charge  that  we  went  to  war  to 
perpetuate  slavery,  we  have  thought  we  could  render  no  more  valu 
able  service  in  this  Eeport,  than  to  show — (1)  That  we  were  right 
on  the  real  question  involved  in  the  contest;  and  (2)  That  not 
withstanding  this,  and  the  further  fact,  that  the  South  had  never 
violated  the  Constitution,  whilst  the  North  had  confessedly  re 
peatedly  done  so ;  nay,  that  fourteen  of  the  sixteen  Free  States  had 
not  only  nullified,  but  had  defied  acts  of  Congress  passed  in  pur 
suance  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court 
sustaining  those  acts,  and  that  the  North,  and  not  the  South,  had 
brought  on  the  war.  We  believe  we  have  established  these  proposi 
tions  by  evidence  furnished  by  our  late  adversaries;  and  the  last, 
by  that  of  Mr.  Lincoln  himself.  On  this  testimony,  we  think  we 
can  afford  to  rest  our  case.  And  we  believe  that  the  evidence 
furnished  in  our  last  Eeport,  and  in  this,  will  establish  the  justice, 
both  of  our  cause  and  of  the  conduct  of  our  people  in  reference  to 
the  war. 

HISTORIES    IN"    OUR   SCHOOLS. 

The  several  histories,  used  in  schools,  were  so  fully  discussed  in 
our  last  Eeport,  that  we  deem  it  unnecessary  to  add  anything 
further  on  that  subject.  We  are  gratified  to  be  able  to  report  that 
the  two  works  adversely  criticised  in  our  last  Eeport,  viz. :  Fiske's 
and  Cooper,  Estill  &  Lemon's  Histories,  respectively,  have  found 
but  little  favor  with  the  School  Boards  of  our  State.  This  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  out  of  the  118  counties  and  corporations  in 
the  State  but  one  has  adopted  Fiske's,  and  that  one  has  purchased 
a  supply  of  Jones'  History  to  be  used  by  the  pupils  in  studying  the 
history  pertaining  to  the  war.  That  Cooper,  Estill  &  Lemon's 
History  is  now  only  used  in  six  places ;  whilst  all  the  other  counties 
and  corporations  (with  the  exception  of  one,  which  uses  Han- 
sell's)  use  either  Mrs.  Lee's  or  Dr.  Jones'  Histories,  or  the  two  con 
jointly,  the  relative  use  of  these  being  as  follows:  Lee's,  68; 
Jones',  25;  Lee  and  Jones,  conjointly,  17. 

It  will  thus  be  seen,  that  the  danger  apprehended  from  the  use 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  63 

of  the  two  works  criticised,,  is  reduced  to  the  minimum.  But  we 
must  not  be  satisfied  until  that  danger  is  entirely  removed  by  the 
abolishment  of  these  books  from  the  list  of  those  adopted  for  use 
by  our  State  Board  of  Education.  We  are  informed  by  this  Board 
that  it  can  do  nothing  in  this  direction  pending  the  existing 
contracts  with  the  publishers  of  these  works,  which  contracts 
expire  on  July  31,  1902.  But  we  are  also  informed,  that 
under  the  provisons  of  a  law  passed  prior  to  the  making  of  these 
contracts,  it  is  competent  for  County  and  City  School  Boards  to 
change  the  text-books  on  the  history  of  the  United  States  whenever 
they  deem  it  proper  to  do  so.  We  would,  therefore,  urge  these 
local  boards  to  stop  the  use  of  the  two  works  criticised  in  our  last 
report,  at  once. 

COMPOSED   OF   GOOD   MEN. 

It  is  almost  gratifying  to  us  to  state  what  you,  perhaps,  already 
know,  that  all  three  of  the  members  of  our  State  Board  of  Educa 
tion,  are  not  only  native  and  true  Virginians,  but  men  devoted  to 
the  principles  for  which  we  fought,  and  that  they,  and  each  of  them, 
stand  ready  to  co-operate  with  us,  as  far  as  they  can  legally  and 
properly  do  so,  in  having  our  children  taught  "  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,"  in  regard  to  the  war,  and  the 
causes  which  led  to  it.  We  would  ask  for  nothing  more,  and  we 
should  ask  for  nothing  less,  from  any  source. 

We  repeat  the  recommendation  heretofore  made,  both  to  this  Camp 
and  to  the  United  Confederate  Veterans,  that  separate  chairs  of 
American  history  be  established  in  all  our  principal  Southern  Col 
leges,  so  that  the  youth  of  our  land  may  be  taught  the  truth  as  to 
the  formation  of  this  government,  and  of  the  principles  for  which 
their  fathers  fought  for  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  Con 
stitutional  liberty  in  our  land. 

Our  attention  has  recently  been  called  to  the  fact  that  in  none  of 
the  histories  used  in  our  schools,  is  any  mention  made  (certainly 
none  compared  with  what  it  deserves)  of  the  splendid  services 
rendered  our  cause  by  the  devoted  and  gallant  band  led  by  Col.  John 
S.  Mosby.  This  organization,  whilst  forming  a  part  of  Gen'l  Lee's 


64  Official  Reports  of  the 

army,  and  at  all  times  subject  to  his  orders,  was  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  an  independent  command.  We  believe,  that  for  its  num 
bers  and  resources,  it  performed  as  gallant,  faithful  and  efficient 
services  as  any  other  command  in  any  part  of  our  armies,  and  that 
no  history  of  our  cause  is  at  all  complete,  that  fails  to  give  some 
general  idea,  at  the  least,  of  the  deeds  of  devotion  and  daring  per 
formed  by  this  gallant  band  and  its  intrepid  leader. 

UNION    OF   OUR   FATHERS. 

We  sometimes  hear  (not  often,  it  is  true,  but  still  too  often) 
from  those  who  were  once  Confederate  soldiers  themselves,  or  from 
the  children  of  Confederates,  such  expressions  as — "  We  are  glad 
the  South  did  not  succeed  in  her  struggle  for  independence."  "  We 
are  glad  that  slavery  is  abolished,"  &c. 

We  wish  to  express  our  sincere  regret,  that  any  of  our  people 
should  so  far  forget  themselves  as  to  indulge  in  any  such 
remarks.  In  the  first  place,  we  think  they  are  utterly  uncalled  for, 
and  in  bad  taste.  In  the  second  place,  to  some  extent,  they  reflect 
upon  the  Confederate  cause,  and  those  who  defended  that  cause; 
and  in  the  third  place,  it  seems  to  us,  if  our  own  self-respect  does 
not  forever  seal  our  lips  against  such  expressions,  that  the  memories 
of  a  sacred  past,  the  blod  of  the  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands 
of  those  who  died,  the  tears,  the  toils,  the  wounds,  and  the  innumer 
able  sacrifices  of  both  the  living  and  the  dead,  that  were  freely  given 
for  the  success  of  that  cause,  would  be  an  appeal  against  such  expres 
sions,  that  could  not  be  resisted.  If  all  that  is  meant  by  the  first  of 
these  expressions  is,  that  the  speaker  means  to  say,  "  He  is  glad  that 
the  ( Union  of  our  Fathers '  is  preserved,"  then  we  can  unite  with 
him  in  rejoicing  at  this,  if  this  is  the  "  Union  of  our  Fathers,"  as 
to  which  we  have  the  gravest  doubts.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  we 
have  never  believed  that  the  subjugation  of  the  South  or  the  success 
of  the  North,  was  either  necessary,  or  the  best  way  to  preserve  and 
perpetuate  the  "  Union  of  our  Fathers." 

On  the  secession  of  Mississippi,  her  Convention  sent  a  Commis 
sioner  from  that  State  to  Maryland,  who,  at  that  time,  it  may  be 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  65 

sure,  expressed  the  real  objects  sought  to  be  attained  by  secession  by 
the  great  body  of  the  Southern  people.     He  said : 

"  Secession  is  not  intended  to  break  up  the  present  Government, 
but  to  perpetuate  it.  We  do  not  propose  to  go  out  by  way  of  destroy 
ing  the  Union,,  as  our  fathers  gave  it  to  us,  but  we  go  out  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  further  guarantees  and  security  for  our  rights," 
&c. 

MIGHT   HAVE   BEEN    BETTER. 

And  so  we  believe,  that  with  the  success  of  the  South,  the  "  Union 
of  our  Fathers,"  which  the  South  was  the  principal  factor  in  form 
ing,  and  to  which  she  was  far  more  attached  than  the  North,  would 
have  been  restored  and  re-established ;  that  in  this  Union  the  South 
would  have  been  again  the  dominant  people,  the  controlling  power, 
and  that  its  administration  of  the  Government  in  that  union,  would 
have  been  along  constitutional  and  just  lines,  and  not  through  Mili 
tary  Districts,  attempted  Confiscations,  Force  Bills,  and  other 
oppressive  and  illegal  methods,  such  as  characterized  the  conduct  of 
the  North  for  four  years  after  the  war,  in  its  alleged  restoration  of 
a  Union  which  it  denied  had  ever  been  dissolved. 

As  to  the  abolition  of  slavery :  Whilst  we  know  of  no  one  in  the 
South  who  does  not  rejoice  that  this  has  ben  accomplished,  we 
know  of  no  one,  anywhere,  so  lost  to  every  sense  of  right  and  justice 
as  not  to  condemn  the  iniquitious  way  in  which  this  was  done. 
But  we  feel  confident  that  no  matter  how  the  war  had  ended,  it 
would  have  resulted  in  the  freedom  of  the  slave,  and  as  surely  with 
the  success  of  the  South  as  with  that  of  the  North,  although  perhaps 
not  so  promptly. 

We  are  warranted  in  this  conclusion,  from  several  considera 
tions —  (1)  It  was  conclusively  shown  in  our  last  Report,  that  we 
did  not  fight  for  the  continuation  of  slavery,  and  that  a  large 
majority  of  our  soldiers  were  non-slaveholders;  (2)  That  our  great 
leader,  General  Lee,  had  freed  his  slaves  before  the  war,  whilst 
General  Grant  held  on  to  his  until  they  were  free  by  the  Emancipa 
tion  Proclamation;  and  (3)  Whilst  Mr.  Lincoln  issued  that  procla 
mation,  he  said  in  his  first  inaugural : 
4 


66  Official  Reports  of  the 

"  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,,  to  interfere  with  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I  have 
no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so." 

EMANCIPATION  OP  SLAVES. 

With  the  success  of  the  South,  we  believe  emancipation  would 
have  followed  by  some  method  of  compensation  for  the  property 
rights  in  slaves,  just  as  the  North  had  received  compensation  for 
the  same  property,  when  held  by  it.  Certainly  it  would  not  have 
been  accomplished  by  putting  the  whites  under  the  heel  of  the  Hacks, 
as  was  attempted  by  the  North.  In  the  contest  between  Lincoln 
and  McClellan,  in  1864,  the  people  of  the  North  were  nearly  equally 
divided  on  the  issues  involved  in  the  war,  Lincoln  having  received 
2,200,000  votes  in  that  contest,  whilst  McClellan  received  1,800,000 
(in  round  numbers).  We  know,  too,  that  Lincoln  was  not  only  a 
"  minority  "  President,  but  a  big  "  minority "  President,  his  op 
ponents  having  received  a  million  more  votes  in  1860  than  he 
received.  So  that,  with  a  divided  North,  and  a  united  South,  on 
the  principles  for  which  we  contended,  if  the  South  had  been  suc 
cessful  in  the  war,  her  people  would  have  dominated  and  controlled 
this  country  for  the  last  thirty-five  years,  as  they  did  the  first  seventy 
years  of  its  existence,  and,  in  our  opinion,  both  the  country  and 
the  South  would  have  been  benefited  by  that  domination  and  con 
trol. 

Again,  think  of  the  difference  between  the  South  being  made  to 
pay  the  war  debt  and  pensions  of  the  North,  and  the  latter  having 
to  pay  those  of  the  former.  And  again,  we  reason,  that  if  the 
South,  in  all  the  serfdom  and  oppression  in  which  it  was  left  by 
the  results  of  the  war,  has  accomplished  what  it  has — (it  has 
made  greater  material  advances  in  proportion  than  any  other  sec 
tion) — what  could  it  not  have  done,  if  it  had  been  the  con 
queror  instead  of  the  conquered? 

We  simply  allude  to  these  material  facts,  with  the  hope  that  these, 
and  every  consideration  dictated  by  self-respect,  love  of,  and  loyalty 
to,  a  sacred  and  glorious  past,  will  prevent  a  repetition  of  the 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  67 

expressions  of  which  we,  as  representatives  of  the  Confederate  cause 
and  people,  justly  complain,  and  against  which  we  earnestly  protest. 
All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

GEORGE  L.  CHRISTIAN, 
Acting  Chairman  History  Committee. 


REPORT 

BY 

JUDGE   GEO.  L.    CHRISTIAN, 

Chairman. 

October  25,  1901. 

A  Contrast  Between  the  Way  the  War  was 
Conducted  by  the  Federals  and  the  Way  it 
was  Conducted  by  the  Confederates,  drawn 
Almost  Entirely  from  Federal  Sources. 


REPORT  OF  OCTOBER  25,  1901. 


To  tf/ie  Grand  Camp  of  Confederate  Veterans  of  Virginia: 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  the  subject  selected  for 
consideration  in  this  report,  your  Committee  begs  leave  to  tender 
its  thanks  to  the  Camp,  and  to  the  public  for  the  many  expressions 
it  has  received  of  their  appreciation  of  its  last  two  reports.  These 
expressions  have  come  from  every  section  of  the  country,  and  they 
are  not  only  most  gratifying,  showing  as  they  do,  the  importance 
of  the  work  of  this  Camp  in  establishing  the  justice  of  the  Confed 
erate  cause ;  but  that  this  work  is  also  causing  the  truth  concerning 
that  cause  to  be  taught  to  our  children,  which  was  not  the  case 
until  these  Confederate  Camps  effected  that  great  result.  Our 
report  of  1899,  prepared  by  your  late  distinguished  and  lamented 
Chairman,  Dr.  Hunter  McGuire,  was  directed  mainly  to  a  criticism 
of  certain  histories  then  used  in  our  schools,  and  to  demonstrate 
the  fact  that  the  South  did  not  go  to  war  either  to  maintain  or  to 
perpetuate  the  institution  of  slavery,  as  our  enemies  have  tried  so 
hard  to  make  the  world  believe  was  the  case.  That  of  1900  was 
directed — 

(1)  To  establish  the  right  of  secession  (the  real  question  at  issue 
in  the  war)  by  Northern  testimony  alone,  and 
^(2)  To  establish  the  fact  that  the  North  was  the  aggressor  in 
bringing  on  the  war,  and  by  the  same  kind  of  testimony. 

These  two  reports  have  been  published,  the  first  for  two,  and  the 
second  for  one  year,  and  as  far  as  we  know,  no  fact  contended  for 
in  either  has  been  attempted  to  be  controverted.  We  feel  justified, 
therefore,  in  claiming  that  these  facts  have  been  established. 

HOW   THE   WAR   WAS    CONDUCTED. 

Having  then,  we  think,  established  the  justice  of  the  Confederate 
Cause,  and  that  the  Northern  people  were  responsible  for,  and  the 
aggressors  in  bringing  on  the  war,  and  both  of  these  facts  by  testi- 

[71] 


72  Official  Reports  of  the 

mony  drawn  almost  exclusively  from  Northern  sources,  it  is  only 
left  for  us  to  consider  how  the  war,  thus  forced  upon  the  South  by 
the  North,  was  conducted  by  the  respective  combatants  through 
their  representatives,  both  in  the  Cabinet  and  in  the  field?  We 
fully  recognize  that  within  the  limits  of  this  report  it  is  impossible 
to  do  more  than  to  "  touch  the  fringe,"  as  it  were,  of  this  important 
inquiry.  The  details  of  the  horrors  of  the  four  years  of  that  war 
would  fill  many,  many  volumes,  and  it  is  not  our  purpose  or  desire 
to  go  fully  into  any  such  sad  and  harrowing  recital.  We  propose, 
therefore,  only  to  give  the  principles  of  civilized  warfare  as  adopted 
by  the  Federal  authorities  for  the  government  of  their  armies  in 
the  field  during  the  war,  and  then  cite  some  of  the  most  flagrant 
violations  of  those  principles  by  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
representatives  of  that  government  in  the  war  waged  by  it  against 
the  South.  Of  course,  in  doing  this  we  shall  have  to  refer  to  some 
things  very  familiar  to  all  of  us ;  but  the  repetition  of  them  in  this 
report  would  nevertheless  seem  necessary  and  proper  to  its  com 
pleteness. 

In  performing  this  distasteful  task  we  wish,  in  the  beginning,  to 
disclaim  any  and  all  purpose  or  wish  on  our  part  to  reopen  the 
wounds  or  to  rekindle  the  feelings  of  bitterness  engendered  by  that 
unholy  and  unhappy  strife.  As  we  said  in  our  last  report,  we 
recognize  that  this  whole  country  is  one  country  and  our  country, 
and  we  of  the  South  are  as  true  to  it,  and  will  do  as  much  to  uphold 
its  honor  and  defend  its  rights,  as  those  of  any  other  section.  But 
we  are  also  true  to  a  sacred  past,  a  past  which  had  principles  for 
which  thousands  of  our  comrades  suffered  and  died,  and  which  are 
living  principles  to-day — principles  which  we  fought  to  maintain, 
and  for  which  our  whole  people,  almost  without  exception,  willingly 
and  heroically  offered  their  lives,  their  blood  and  their  fortunes; 
and  whilst  we  do  not  propose  to  live  in  that  past,  we  do  propose  that 
the  principles  of  that  past  shall  live  in  us,  and  that  we  will  transmit 
these  principles  to  our  children  and  their  descendants  to  the  latest 
generations  yet  unborn.  We  believe  that  only  by  doing  this  can  we 
and  they  make  good  citizens  of  the  republic,  as  founded  by  our 
fathers,  and  that  not  to  do  this  would  be  false  to  the  memory  of  our 
dead  and  to  ourselves. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  73 

Then  let  us  enquire,  first,  what  were  the  rules  adopted  by  the 
Federals  for  the  government  of  their  armies  in  war?  The  most 
important  of  these  are  as  follows: 

(1)  "  Private  property,  unless  forfeited  by  crimes,  or  by  offences 
of  the  owner  against  the  safety  of  the  army,  or  the  dignity  of  the 
United  States,  and  after  conviction  of  the  owner  by  court  martial, 
can  be  seized  only  by  way  of  military  necessity  for  the  support  or 
other  benefit  of  the  army  of  the  United  States." 

(2)  "  All  wanton  violence  committed  against  persons  in  the 
invaded  country;  all  destruction  of  property  not  commanded  by 
the  authorized  officer ;  all  robbery ;  all  pillage  or  sacking,  even  after 
taking  a  place  by  main  force ;  all  rape,  wounding,  maiming,  or  kill 
ing  of  such  inhabitants,  are  prohibited  under  penalty  of  death,  or 
such  other  severe  punishment  as  may  seem  adequate  for  the  gravity 
of  the  offense." 

(3)  "  Crimes  punishable  by  all  penal  codes,  such  as  arson,  mur 
der,  maiming,  assaults,  highway  robbery,  theft,  burglary,  fraud, 
forgery  and  rape,  if  committed  by  an  American  soldier  in  a  hostile 
country  against  its  inhabitants,  are  not  only  punishable,  as  at  home, 
but  in  all  cases  in  which  death  is  not  inflicted,  the  severer  punish 
ment  shall  be  preferred,  because  the  criminal  has,  as  far  as  in  him 
lay,  prostituted  the  power  conferred  on  a  man  of  arms,  and  prosti 
tuted  the  dignity  of  the  United  States." 

Now,  as  we  have  said,  these  were  the  important  provisions  adopted 
by  the  Federals  for  the  government  of  their  armies  in  war. 

General  McClellan,  a  gentleman,  a  trained  and  educated  soldier, 
recognized  these  principles  from  the  beginning,  and  acted  on  them. 
On  July  7,  1862,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Lincoln  from  Harrison's  Landing, 
saying,  among  other  things : 

"  This  rebellion  has  assumed  the  character  of  a  war ;  as  such 
it  should  be  conducted  upon  the  highest  principles  of  Christian 
civilization.  It  should  not  be  a  war  looking  to  the  subjugation 
of  the  people  of  any  State  in  any  event.  It  should  not  be  at  all 
a  war  upon  populations,  but  against  armed  forces  and  political 
organizations.  Neither  confiscation  of  property,  political  execu 
tions  of  persons,  territorial  organization  of  States,  nor  forcible 
abolition  of  slavery,  should  be  contemplated  for  a  moment." 


74  Official  Reports  of  the 

"  In  prosecuting  the  war,  all  private  property  and  unarmed  per 
sons,  should  be  strictly  protected,,  subject  only  to  the  necessity  of 
military  operations.  All  property  taken  for  military  use  should 
be  paid  or  receipted  for;  pillage  and  waste  should  be  treated  as 
high  crimes ;  all  unnecessary  trespass  sternly  prohibited,  and  offen 
sive  demeanor  by  the  military  towards  citizens  promptly  rebuked." 
See  2  Am.  Conflict  (Greeley),  p.  248.  4 

The  writer's  home  was  visited  by  the  Army  of  the  Potomac, 
both  under  McClellan  and  under  Grant.  At  the  time  McClellan 
was  in  command  guards  were  stationed  to  protect  the  premises,  with 
orders  to  shoot  any  soldier  caught  depredating,  and  but  little  dam 
age  was  actually  done;  none  with  the  consent  or  connivance  of  the 
commanding  general.  But  when  the  same  army  came,  commanded 
by  Grant,  every  house  on  the  place,  except  one  negro  cabin,  was 
burned  to  the  ground;  all  stock  and  everything  else  of  any  value 
was  carried  off.  The  occupants  were  only  women,  children  and  ser 
vants;  nearly  all  the  servants  were  carried  off;  one  of  the  ladies 
was  so  shocked  at  the  outrages  committed  as  to  cause  her  death, 
and  the  other  and  the  children  were  turned  out  of  doors  without 
shelter  or  food,  and  with  only  the  clothing  they  had  on.  So  that 
the  writer  has  had  a  real  experience  of  the  difference  between 
civilized  and  barbarous  warfare.  To  show  how  little  the  advice  of 
McClellan,  as  to  the  principles  on  which  the  war  should  be  con 
ducted,  was  heeded  at  Washington,  and  it  would  seem  stimulated  in 
an  opposite  course  by  his  suggestions,  we  find  in  two  weeks  from 
the  date  of  his  letter  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  just  quoted — viz.,  on  July  20, 
1862 — that  General  John  Pope,  commanding  the  "Army  of  Vir 
ginia,"  issued  the  following  order : 

GENERAL   POPE'S    ORDERS. 

(1)  "  The  people  of  the  Valley  of  the  Shenandoah  and  through 
out  the  regions  of  the  operations  of  this  army,  living  along  the  lines 
of  railroad  and  telegraph  and  along  the  routes  of  travel  in  rear  of 
the  United  States  forces,  are  notified  that  they  will  be  held  responsi 
ble  for  any  injury  done  to  the  track,  line  or  road,  or  for  any  attack 
upon  trains  or  straggling  soldiers  by  bands  of  guerrillas  in  their 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  75 

neighborhood."  *  *  *  *  "  Safety  of  life  and  property  of  all 
persons  living  in  the  rear  of  our  advancing  armies  depends  upon 
the  maintenance  of  peace  and  quiet  among  themselves,  and  of  the 
unmolested  movement  through  their  midst  of  all  pertaining  to  the 
military  service.  They  are  to  understand  distinctly  that  this 
security  of  travel  is  their  only  warrant  of  safety.  It  is  therefore 
ordered,  that  whenever  a  railroad,  wagon  road,  or  telegraph  is 
injured  by  parties  of  guerrillas,  the  citizens  living  within  five  miles 
of  the  spot  shall  be  turned  out  in  mass  to  repair  the  damage,  and 
shall,  besides,  pay  to  the  United  States,  in  money  or  in  property, 
to  be  levied  by  military  force,  the  full  amount  of  the  pay  and  sub 
sistence  of  the  whole  force  necessary  to  coerce  the  performance 
of  the  work  during  the  time  occupied  in  completing  it.  If  a 
soldier  or  a  legitimate  follower  of  the  army,  be  fired  upon  from  any 
house,  the  house  shall  be  razed  to  the  ground,  and  the  inhabitants 
sent  prisoners  to  the  headquarters  of  the  army.  If  an  outrage 
occurs  at  any  place  distant  from  settlements,  the  people  within  five 
miles  around  shall  be  held  accountable,  and  made  to  pay  an  indem 
nity  sufficient  for  the  case." 

We  defy  investigation  in  the  history  of  modern  warfare  to  find 
anything  emanating  from  a  general  commanding  an  army  as 
cowardly  and  as  cruel  as  this  order.  Just  think  of  it :  The  women, 
children  and  non-combatants,  living  within  five  miles  of  the  rear 
of  an  invading  army,  ordered  to  protect  it  from  the  incursions  of 
the  opposing  army,  or  upon  failure  to  do  this,  whether  from 
inability  or  any  other  cause,  to  forfeit  their  lives  or  their  property. 

Again,  this  same  commander,  on  July  23,  1862,  issued  the  fol 
lowing  order : 

"  Commanders  of  army  corps,  divisions,  brigades  and  detached 
commands,  will  proceed  immediately  to  arrest  all  disloyal  male 
citizens  within  their  lines,  or  within  their  reach,  in  rear  of  their 
respective  stations.  Such  as  are  willing  to  take  the  oath  of  alle 
giance  to  the  United  States,  and  will  furnish  sufficient  security  for 
its  observance,  shall  be  permitted  to  remain  at  their  homes  and  pur 
sue,  in  good  faith,  their  accustomed  avocations.  Those  who  refuse 
shall  be  conducted  south,  beyond  the  extreme  pickets  of  this  army, 


76  Official  Reports  of  the 

and  be  notified  that  if  found  anywhere  within  our  lines,,  or  at  any 
point  within  our  rear,  they  will  be  considered  spies  and  subjected 
to  the  extreme  rigor  of  military  law"  (i.  e.,  death  by  hanging). 

See  "  The  Army  Under  Pope,"  by  Hopes,  pp.  175-6-7. 

This  last  order  Mr.  John  C.  Hopes,  of  Boston,  a  distinguished 
Northern  writer,  one  generally  fairer  to  the  South  than  others  who 
have  written  from  that  locality,  criticises  most  harshly,  and  he 
does  this,  too,  although  he  is  about  the  only  apologist,  as  far  as  we 
have  seen,  of  this  bombastic  and  incompetent  officer. 

General  Steinwehr,  one  of  Pope's  brigadiers,  seized  innocent  and 
peaceful  inhabitants  and  held  them  as  hostages  to  the  end  that  they 
should  be  murdered  in  cold  blood  should  any  of  his  soldiers  be 
killed  by  unknown  persons,  whom  he  designated  as  "  bushwhackers." 

On  the  very  day  of  the  signing  of  the  cartel  for  the  exchange  of 
prisoners  between  the  Federal  and  Confederate  authorities  (July 
22,  1862),  the  Federal  Secretary  of  War,  by  order  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
issued  an  order  to  the  military  commanders  in  Virginia,  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Texas 
and  Arkansas,  directing  them  to  seize  and  use  any  property  belong 
ing  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  Confederacy,  which  might  be  "  neces 
sary  or  convenient  for  their  several  commands,"  and  no  provision 
was  made  for  any  compensation  to  the  owners  of  private  property 
thus  seized  and  appropriated. 

This  order  was  such  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  rules  of  civilized 
warfare — those  adopted  by  the  Federal  Government  itself,  as  here 
inbefore  quoted — that  the  Confederate  Government  sought  to  pre 
vent  it  being  carried  into  execution  by  issuing  a  general  order,  dated 
August  1,  1862,  denouncing  this  order  of  the  Federal  Secretary, 
and  those  of  Pope  and  Steinwehr,  as  "  acts  of  savage  cruelty,"  vio- 
lative  "of  all  rules  and  usages  of  war,"  and  as  converting  the 
<:  hostilities  hitherto  waged  against  armed  forces  into  a  campaign  of 
robbery  and  murder  against  unarmed  citizens  and  peaceful  tillers 
of  the  soil."  And  by  way  of  retaliation,  declared  that  Pope  and 
his  commissioned  officers  were  not  to  be  considered  as  soldiers,  and 
therefore  not  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  cartel  for  the  parole  of 
future  prisoners  of  war,  and  ordered  that  if  Pope,  Steinwehr,  or 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  77 

any  of  their  commissioned  officers,  were  captured,  they  should  be 
kept  in  close  confinement  as  long  as  the  foregoing  orders  remained 
in  force. 

(See  1  South.  His.  Society  Papers,  302-3.) 

General  Eobert  E.  Lee,  on  receiving  this  order  from  the  Con 
federate  authorities,  at  once  sent  a  communication  to  "  The  General 
Commanding  the  United  States  Army  at  Washington,"  in  which, 
referring  to  these  orders  of  Pope  and  the  Federal  War  Department, 
he  said: 

"  Some  of  the  military  authorities  of  the  United  States  seem  to 
suppose  that  their  end  will  be  better  attained  by  a  savage  war,  in 
which  no  quarter  is  to  be  given  and  no  age  or  sex  will  be  spared, 
than  by  such  hostilities  as  are  alone  recognized  to  be  lawful  in 
modern  times.  We  find  ourselves  driven  by  our  enemies  by  steady 
progress  towards  a  practice  which  we  abhor,  and  which  we  are  vainly 
struggling  to  avoid." 

He  then  says : 

"Under  these  circumstances,  this  government  has  issued  the 
accompanying  general  order  (that  of  August  1,  1862),  which  I 
am  directed  by  the  President  to  transmit  to  you,  recognizing  Major- 
General  Pope  and  his  commissioned  officers  to  be  in  a  position  which 
they  have  chosen  for  themselves — that  of  robbers  and  murderers — 
and  not  that  of  public  enemies,  entitled,  if  captured,  to  be  treated 
as  prisoners  of  war." 

At  this  day  it  may  be  safely  said,  that  there  are  few,  if  any, 
either  at  the  North  or  in  the  South,  who  will  question  either  that 
General  Lee  knew  the  rules  of  civilized  warfare,  or  that  he  would 
have  denounced  those  who  were  guilty  of  violating  these  rules  as 
"  robbers  and  murderers,"  had  they  not  been  justly  entitled  to  this 
distinction.  And  let  it  be  distinctly  borne  in  mind,  that  the  order 
of  the  Federal  Secretary  of  War  was  issued  by  order  of  the  Presi 
dent,  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  if  he  ever  rebuked  Pope  or  Steinwehr,  or 
any  of  the  others,  to  whom  we  shall  hereafter  refer,  for  their  out 
rages  and  cruelties  to  the  Southern  people,  the  record,  as  far  as  we 
can  find  it,  is  silent  on  that  subject. 


78  Official  Reports  of  the 

GENERAL   MILROY^S   ORDER. 

On  the  28th  November,  1862,  General  E.  H.  Milroy  had  an  order 
sent  to  Mr.  Adam  Harper,  a  man  82  years  old,  and  a  cripple,  one 
who  had  served  as  a  soldier  in  the  war  of  1812,  and  who  was  a  son 
of  a  Eevolutionary  soldier,  who  had  served  throughout  that  war, 
which  was  as  follows : 
"MR.  ADAM  HARPER: 

"  Sir, — In  consequence  of  certain  robberies  which  have  been 
committed  on  Union  citizens  of  this  county  by  bands  of  guerrillas, 
you  are  hereby  assessed  to  the  amount  of  ($285.00)  two  hundred  and 
eighty-five  dollars,  to  make  good  their  losses,  and  upon  your  failure 
to  comply  with  the  above  assessment  by  the  8th  day  of  December, 
the  following  order  has  been  issued  to  me  by  General  E.  H.  Milroy : 

"  You  are  to  burn  their  houses,  seize  all  their  cattle  and  shoot 
them.  You  will  be  sure  that  you  strictly  carry  out  this  order.  You 
will  inform  the  inhabitants  for  ten  or  fifteen  miles  around  your 
camp,  on  all  the  roads  approaching  the  town  upon  which  the  enemy 
may  approach,  that  they  must  dash  in  and  give  you  notice,  and 
upon  any  one  failing  to  do  so,  you  will  burn  their  houses  and  shoot 
the  men. 

"  By  order  of  Brigadier-General  E.  H.  Milroy. 

"H.  KELLOG,"  "Captain  Commanding  Post." 

Could  the  most  brutal  savagery  of  any  age  exceed  the  unreasoning 
cruelty  of  this  order.  (See  1.  South.  His.  Society  Papers,  p.  231.) 

GENERAL  SHERMANS  CONDUCT. 

But  we  must  go  on.  In  the  earlier  part  of  the  war,  General 
William  T.  Sherman  knew  and  recognized  the  rules  adopted  by 
his  government  for  the  conduct  of  its  armies  in  the  field;  and  so, 
on  September  29,  1861,  he  wrote  to  General  Bobert  Anderson,  at 
Louisville,  Ky.,  saying,  among  other  things: 

"  I  am  sorry  to  report,  that  in  spite  of  my  orders  and  entreaties, 
our  troops  are  committing  depredations  that  will  ruin  our  cause. 
Horses  and  wagons  have  been  seized,  cattle,  sheep,  hogs,  chickens 
taken  by  our  men,  some  of  whom  wander  for  miles  around.  I  am 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  79 

doing,  and  have  done,  all  in  my  power  to  stop  this,  but  the  men 
are  badly  disciplined  and  give  little  heed  to  my  orders  or  those  of 
their  own  regimental  officers." 

(See  Sherman's  Eaid,  by  Boynton,  page  23.) 

Later  on  General  Sherman  said:  "War  is  hell."  If  we  could 
record  here  all  the  testimony  in  our  possession,  from  the  people 
of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  who  had  the  misfortune  to  live 
along  the  line  of  his  famous  "march  to  the  sea,"  during  nearly 
the  whole  length  of  which  he  was  warring  against,  and  depre 
dating  on,  women,  children,  servants,  old  men,  and  other  non- 
combatants  (as  to  which  he  wrote  in  his  telegram  to  Grant,  "  I  can 
make  this  march  and  make  Georgia  howl,"  Boynton,  page  129),  it 
would  show  that  he  had  certainly  contributed  all  in  his  power  to 
make  war  "Hell"  as  he  termed  it;  and  has  justly  earned  the  dis 
tinction  of  being  called  the  ruling  genius  of  this  creation. 

We  will  first  let  General  Sherman  himself  tell  what  was  done 
by  him  and  his  men  on  this  famous,  or  rather  infamous,  march. 
He  says  of  it  in  his  official  report : 

"We  consumed  the  corn  and  fodder  in  the  region  of  country 
(  thirty  miles  on  either  side  of  a  line  from  Atlanta  to  Savannah; 
also  the  sweet  potatoes,  hogs,  sheep  and  poultry,  and  carried  off 
more  than  ten  thousand  horses  and  mules.  I  estimate  the  dam 
age  done  to  the  State  of  Georgia  at  one  hundred  million  dollars, 
at  least  twenty  millions  of  which  enured  to  our  benefit,  and  the 
remainder  was  simply  waste  and  destruction." 

But  we  will  introduce  other  witnesses,  and  these  some  of  his 
own  soldiers,  who  accompanied  him  on  his  march ;  Captain  Daniel 
Oakley,  of  the  Second  Regiment,  Massachusetts  Volunteers,  in 
"  Battles  and  Leaders,"  says  this : 

"  It  was  sad  to  see  the  wanton  destruction  of  property,  which 
(  was  the  work  of  ( bummers/  who  were  marauding  through  the 
country  committing  every  sort  of  outrage.  There  was  no  re 
straint,  except  with  the  column  or  the  regular  foraging  parties. 
*  *  The  country  was  necessarily  left  to  take  care  of  itself  and 
became  a  howling  waste.  The  'Coffee  Coolers'  of  the  Army  of 
the  Potomac  were  archangels  compared  to  our  '  bummers,'  who 


80  Official  Reports  of  the 

often  fell  to  the  tender  mercies  of  Wheeler's  cavalry,  and  were  never 
heard  of  again,  meeting  a  fate  richly  deserved." 

Another  Northern  soldier,  writing  for  the  "  Detroit  Free  Press," 
gives  the  following  graphic  account :  After  describing  the  burning 
of  Marietta,  in  which  the  writer  says,  among  other  things,  "  soldiers 
rode  from  house  to  house,  entered  without  ceremony,  and  kindled 
fires  in  garrets  and  closets  and  stood  by  to  see  that  they  were  not 
extinguished."  He  then  further  says : 

>**  "  Had  one  been  able  to  climb  to  such  a  height  at  Atlanta  as 
to  enable  him  to  see  for  forty  miles  around  the  day  Sherman 
marched  out,  he  would  have  been  appalled  at  the  destruction. 
Hundreds  of  houses  had  been  burned,  every  rod  of  fence  destroyed, 
nearly  every  fruit  tree  cut  down,  and  the  face  of  the  country  so 
changed  that  one  born  in  that  section  could  scarcely  recognize  it. 
The  vindictiveness  of  war  would  have  trampled  the  very  earth  out 
of  sight  had  such  a  thing  been  possible." 
Again  he  says : 

"At  the  very  beginning  of  the  campaign  at  Dalton,  the  Fed 
eral  soldiery  had  received  encouragement  to  become  vandals.  *  * 
When  Sherman  cut  loose  from  Atlanta  everybody  had  license  to 
throw  off  restraint  and  make  Georgia  '  drain  the  bitter  cup.'  The 
Federal  who  wants  to  learn  what  it  was  to  license  an  army  to  be 
come  vandals  should  mount  a  horse  at  Atlanta  and  follow  Sher 
man's  route  for  fifty  miles.  He  can  hear  stories  from  the  lips 
of  women  that  would  make  him  ashamed  of  the  flag  that  waved 
over  him  as  he  went  into  battle.  When  the  army  had  passed  noth 
ing  was  left  but  a  trail  of  desolation  and  despair.  No  houses 
escaped  robbery,  no  woman  escaped  insult,  no  building  escaped  the 
firebrand,  except  by  some  strange  interposition.  War  may  license 
an  army  to  subsist  on  the  enemy,  but  civilized  warfare  stops  at  live 
stock,  forage  and  provisions.  It  does  not  enter  the  houses  of  the 
sick  and  helpless  and  rob  women  of  their  finger  rings  and  carry  off 
their  clothing." 

He  then  tells  of  the  "  deliberate  burning  of  Atlanta  "  by  Sher 
man's  order,  of  the  driving  out  from  the  city  of  its  whole  popula- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  81 

tion  of  all  ages,  sexes,  and  conditions  in  the  fields  of  a  desolated 
country  to  starve  and  die,  as  far  as  he  knew  or  cared.  You  have 
only  to  read  these  recitals  and  you  have  the  picture  which  Sherman 
made  and  which  he  truly  denominated  "Hell" 

The  correspondence  between  Mayor  Calhoun  and  two  council- 
men  of  Atlanta,  representing  to  General  Sherman  the  frightful 
suffering  that  would  be  visited  on  the  people  of  that  city  by  the 
execution  of  his  inhuman  order,  and  General  Sherman's  reply,  can 
be  found  in  the  second  volume  of  Sherman's  Memoirs,  at  pages 
124-5 ;  we  can  only  extract  one  or  two  paragraphs  from  each.  The 
letter  of  the  former  says,  among  other  things : 

"Many  poor  women  are  in  advanced  state  of  pregnancy,  others 
now  having  young  children,  and  whose  husbands,  for  the  greater 
part,  are  either  in  the  army,  prisoners,  or  dead.  Some  say,  I  have 
such  a  sick  one  at  my  house,  who  will  wait  on  them  when  I  am 
gone?  Others  say,  what  are  we  to  do?  We  have  no  house  to  go 
to,  and  no  means  to  buy,  build  or  rent  any;  no  parents,  relatives  or 
friends  to  go  to." 

******* 

"  This  being  so  (they  say)  how  is  it  possible  for  the  people  still 
here  (mostly  women  and  children)  to  find  any  shelter?  And 
how  can  they  live  through  the  winter  in  the  woods — no  shelter 
or  subsistence,  in  the  midst  of  strangers  who  know  them  not,  and 
without  the  power  to  assist  them  much  if  they  were  willing  to  do 
so." 

"  This  (they  say)  is  but  a  feeble  picture  of  the  consequences 
of  this  measure.  You  know  the  woe,  the  horrors  and  the  suffer 
ing  cannot  be  described  by  words;  imagination  can  only  con 
ceive  it,  and  we  ask  you  to  take  these  things  into  consideration." 
*  *  * 

To  this  pathetic  appeal  Sherman  coolly  replied  on  the  next  day, 
his  letter  commencing  as  follows : 

"  I  have  your  letter  of  the  llth,  in  the  nature  of  a  petition  to 

revoke  my  orders  removing  all  the  inhabitants  from  Atlanta.     I 

have  read  it  carefully,  and  give  full  credit  to  your  statements  of 

the  distress  that  will  be  occasioned,  and  yet  I  shall  not  revoke  my 

5 


82  Official  Reports  of  the 

orders,  because  they  were  not  designated  to  meet  the  humanities 
of  the  case,  but  to  prepare  for  the  future  struggles  in  which  millions 
of  good  people  outside  of  Atlanta  have  a  deep  interest/'  &c.  *  *  * 

After  he  had  started  on  his  "  march  to  the  sea "  he  gives  an 
account  of  how  the  foraging  details  were  made  and  carried  out 
each  day,  and  concludes  by  saying : 

"  Although  this  foraging  was  attended  with  great  danger  and 
hard  work,  there  seemed  to  be  a  charm  about  it  that  attracted  the 
soldiers,  and  it  was  a  privilege  to  be  detailed  on  such  a  party/' 

"  Lastly,  they  returned  mounted  on  all  sorts  of  beasts,  which 
/were  at  once  taken  from  them  and  appropriated  to  the  general  use, 
but  the  next  day  they  would  start  out  again  on  foot,  only  to  repeat 
the  experience  of  the  day  before.  No  doubt  (he  says)  many  acts  of 
pillage,  robbery  and  violence  were  committed  by  these  parties  of 
foragers,  usually  called  '  bummers,'  for  I  have  since  heard  of  jewelry 
taken  from  women  and  the  plunder  of  articles  that  never  reached 
the  commissary,"  &c.  *  *  * 

(See  2  Mem.,  page  182.) 

He  not  only  does  not  say  that  he  tried  to  prevent  his  army  from 
committing  these  outrages,  but  says,  on  page  255,  in  referring  to  his 
march  through  South  Carolina: 

s»  "  I  would  not  restrain  the  army,  lest  its  vigor  and  energy  should 
be  impaired." 

He  tells  on  page  185  how,  when  he  reached  General  Howell 
Cobb's  plantation,  he  "  sent  word  back  to  General  Davis  to  explain 
whose  plantation  it  was,  and  instructed  him  to  spare  nothing." 
>  To  show  what  a  heartless  wretch  he  was,  he  tells  on  page  194 
about  one  of  his  officers  having  been  wounded  by  the  explosion  of 
a  torpedo  that  had  been  hidden  in  the  line  of  march,  and  on  which 
this  officer  had  stepped.  He  says : 

y  "I  immediately  ordered  a  lot  of  rebel  prisoners  to  be  brought 
from  the  provost  guard,  armed  with  picks  and  spades,  and  made 
them  march  in  close  order  along  the  road,  so  as  to  explode  their 
own  torpedoes,  or  to  discover  and  dig  them  up.  They  begged  hard 
but  I  reiterated  the  order,  and  could  hardly  help  laughing  at  their 
stepping  so  gingerly  along  the  road  where  it  was  supposed  sunken 
torpedoes  might  explode  at  each  step" 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  83 

It  may  be  fairly  inferred,  from  General  Sherman's  middle  name 
(Tecumseh),  that  some  of  his  ancestors  were  Indians.  But 
whether  this  be  true  or  not,  no  one  can  read  this  statement  of  his 
without  being  convinced  that  he  was  a  savage.  But  he  was  not  only 
a  confessed  savage,  as  we  have  seen,  but  a  confessed  vandal  as  well. 
He  says,  on  page  256,  in  telling  of  a  night  he  spent  in  one  of  the 
splendid  old  houses  of  South  Carolina,  where,  he  says,  "the  pro 
prietors  formerly  had  dispensed  a  hospitality  that  distinguished  the 
old  regime  of  that  proud  State:"  "I  slept  (he  says)  on  the  floor 
of  the  house,  but  the  night  was  so  bitter  cold,  that  I  got  up  by  the 
fire  several  times,  and  when  it  burned  low  I  rekindled  it  with  an 
old  mantel  clock  and  the  tvreck  of  a  bedstead  which  stood  in  the 
corner  of  the  room — the  only  act  of  vandalism  that  I  recall  done 
by  myself  personally  during  the  war."  Since  the  admissions  of  a 
criminal  are  always  taken  as  conclusive  proof  of  his  crime,  we 
now  know  from  his  own  lips  that  General  Sherman  was  a  vandal. 

But  we  also  find,  on  page  287,  that  he  confessed  having  told  a 
falsehood  about  General  Hampton,  so  that  we  cannot  credit  his 
statement  that  the  foregoing  was  his  only  act  of  vandalism.  In 
deed,  we  think  we  have  most  satisfactory  evidence  to  the  contrary. 
(It  will  be  noted,  however,  that  Sherman  makes  a  distinction 
between  his  personal  acts  of  vandalism  and  those  he  committed 
through  others.)  A  part  of  this  evidence  is  to  be  found  in  the 
following  letter  from  a  lieutenant,  Thomas  J.  Myers,  published  in 
Vol.  12,  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  page  113,  with  the 
following  head  note : 

"  The  following  letter  was  found  in  the  streets  of  Columbia 
after  the  army  of  General  Sherman  had  left.  The  original  is  still 
preserved,  and  can  be  shown  and  substantiated,  if  anybody  desires. 
We  are  indebted  to  a  distinguished  lady  of  this  city  for  a  copy,  sent 
with  a  request  for  publication.  We  can  add  nothing  in  the  way  of 
comment  on  such  a  document.  It  speaks  for  itself." 

The  letter,  which  is  a  republication  from  the  Alderson  West  Vir 
ginia  Statesman,  of  October  29,  1883,  is  as  follows : 


84  Official  Reports  of  the 

CAMP  NEAR  CAMDEN,  S.  C.,  February  26,  1865. 
My  Dear  Wife : 

"  I  have  no  time  for  particulars.  We  have  had  a  glorious  time 
in  this  State.  Unrestricted  license  to  burn  and  plunder  was  the 
order  of  the  day.  The  chivalry  have  been  stripped  of  most  of  their 
valuables.  Gold  watches,  silver  pitchers,  cups,  spoons,  forks,  &c., 
&c.,  are  as  common  in  camp  as  blackberries.  The  terms  of  plunder 
are  as  follows :  The  valuables  procured  are  estimated  by  companies. 
Each  company  is  required  to  exhibit  the  result  of  its  operations  at 
any  given  place.  One-fifth  and  first  choice  falls  to  the  commander- 
in-chief  and  staff,  one-fifth  to  corps  commander  and  staff,  one-fifth 
to  field  officers,  two-fifths  to  the  company.  Officers  are  not  allowed 
to  join  in  these  expeditions,  unless  disguised  as  privates.  One  of 
our  corps  commanders  borrowed  a  rough  suit  of  clothes  from  one 
of  my  men,  and  was  successful  in  his  place.  He  got  a  large  quantity 
of  silver  (among  other  things  an  old  milk  pitcher),  and  a  very  fine 
gold  watch  from  a  Mr.  DeSaussure,  of  this  place  (Columbia). 
DeSaussure  is  one  of  the  F.  F.  V.'s  of  South  Carolina,  and  was 
made  to  fork  out  liberally.  Officers  over  the  rank  of  captain  are 
not  made  to  put  their  plunder  in  the  estimate  for  general  distribu 
tion.  This  is  very  unfair,  and  for  that  reason,  in  order  to  protect 
themselves,  the  subordinate  officers  and  privates  keep  everything 
back  that  they  can  carry  about  their  persons,  such  as  rings,  earrings, 
breastpins,  &c.,  &c.,  of  which,  if  I  live  to  get  home,  I  have  a  quart. 
I  am  not  joking.  I  have  at  least  a  quart  of  jewelry  for  you  and 
all  the  girls,  and  some  No.  1  diamond  pins  and  rings  among  them. 
General  Sherman  has  gold  and  silver  enought  to  start  a  bank.  His 
share  in  gold  watches  and  chains  alone  at  Columbia  was  two  hun 
dred  and  seventy -five. 

"But  I  said  I  could  not  go  into  particulars.  All  the  general 
officers,  and  many  besides,  have  valuables  of  every  description, 
down  to  ladies'  pocket  handerchiefs.  I  have  my  share  of  them, 
too. 

We  took  gold  and  silver  enough  from  the  d — d  rebels  to  have 
redeemed  their  infernal  currency  twice  over.  *  *  *  I  wish 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  85 

all  the  jewelry  this  army  has  could  be  carried  to  the  Old  Bay 
State.  It  would  deck  her  out  in  glorious  style ;  but,  alas !  it  will 
be  scattered  all  over  the  North  and  Middle  States. 

"  The  damned  niggers,  as  a  general  thing,  preferred  to  stay  at 
home,  particularly  after  they  found  out  that  we  wanted  only  the 
able-bodied  men,  and  to  tell  the  truth,  the  youngest  and  best  looking 
women.  Sometimes  we  took  them  off  by  way  of  repaying  influential 
secessionists.  But  a  part  of  these  we  soon  managed  to  lose,  some 
times  in  crossing  rivers,  sometimes  in  other  ways.  I  shall  write  you 
again  from  Wilmington,  Goldsboro,  or  some  other  place  in  North 
Carolina.  The  order  to  march  has  arrived,  and  I  must  close  hur 
riedly. 

"  Love  to  grandmother  and  Aunt  Charlotte.     Take  care  of  your 
self  and  the  children.     Don't  show  this  letter  out  of  the  family. 
"  Your  affectionate  husband, 

"  THOMAS  J.  MYERS, 
"Lieutenant,  &c" 

"  P.  S. — I  will  send  this  by  the  first  flag  of  truce,  to  be  mailed, 
unless  I  have  an  opportunity  of  sending  it  to  Hilton  Head.  Tell 
Lottie  I  am  saving  a  pearl  bracelet  and  earrings  for  her.  But  Lam 
bert  got  the  necklace  and  breast-pin  of  the  same  set.  I  am  trying 
to  trade  him  out  of  them.  These  were  taken  from  the  Misses 
Jamison,  daughters  of  the  President  of  the  South  Carolina  Seces 
sion  Convention.  We  found  these  on  our  trip  through  Georgia. 

"T.  J.  M." 

"This  letter  is  addressed  to  Mrs.  Thomas  J.  Myers,  Boston, 
Mass." 

It  was  published  in  the  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers, 
in  March,  1884.  About  a  year  thereafter  one  Colonel  Henry 
Stone,  styling  himself  "Late  Brevet  Colonel  U.  S.  Volunteers, 
A.  A.  G.  Army  of  the  Cumberland,"  realizing  the  gravity  of 
the  statements  contained  in  this  letter,  and  the  disgrace  these,  if 
uncontradicted,  would  bring  on  General  Sherman  and  his  army, 


86  Official  Reports  of  the 

and  especially  on  the  staff,,  of  which  he  (Colonel  Stone)  was  a  mem 
ber,  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  J.  William  Jones,  D.  D.,  the  then 
editor  of  the  Historical  Society  Papers,  in  which  he  undertook  to 
show  that  the  Myers  letter  was  not  written  by  any  officer  in  General 
Sherman's  army.  (This  letter  can  be  found  in  Vol.  13,  S.  H.  S. 
Papers,  page  439.)  The  reasons  assigned  by  Colonel  Stone  were 
plausibly  set  forth,  and  Dr.  Jones,  in  his  anxiety  to  do  justice  even 
to  Sherman's  "bummers,"  after  publishing  Colonel  Stone's  letter, 
said  editorially,  he  was  "  frank  to  admit  that  Colonel  Stone  seems 
to  have  made  out  his  case  against  the  authenticity  of  this  letter." 
If  the  matter  had  rested  here,  we  would  not  have  thought  of  using 
this  letter  in  our  report,  notwithstanding  the  fact  ( 1 )  that  we  think 
the  letter  bears  the  impress  of  genuineness  on  its  face;  (2)  it  is 
vouched  for  by  what  Dr.  Jones  termed  a  "  responsible  source,"  and 
what  the  first  paper  publishing  it  cited  as  a  "  distinguished  lady," 
who,  it  also  stated,  said  that  the  original  was  "  still  preserved  and 
could  be  shown  and  substantiated ;"  ( 3 )  the  statements  contained  in 
Colonel  Stone's  letter  are  only  his  statements,  uncorroborated  and 
not  vouched  for  by  any  one,  or  by  any  documentary  evidence  of  any 
kind,  and  being  those  of  an  alleged  accomplice,  are  not  entitled  to 
any  weight  in  a  court  of  justice;  (4)  we  think  the  reasons  assigned 
by  Colonel  Stone  for  the  non-genuineness  of  this  letter  are  for 
the  most  part  not  inconsistent  with  its  genuineness;  and  (5) 
some  of  his  statements  are,  apparently,  inconsistent  with  some  of 
the  facts  as  they  appear  in  the  records  we  have  examined,  e.  g.  He 
says  "  that  of  the  ninety  regiments  of  Sherman's  army,  which  might 
have  passed  on  the  march  near  Camden,  S.  C.,  but  a  single  one — a 
New  Jersey  regiment — was  from  the  Middle  States.  All  the  rest 
were  from  the  West.  A  letter  (he  says)  from  the  only  Thomas  J. 
Myers  ever  in  the  army  would  never  contain  such  a  phrase,"  refer 
ring  to  the  fact  that  Myers  had  said  this  stolen  jewelry,  &c.,  would 
be  scattered  "  all  over  the  North  and  Middle  States."  Sherman's 
statement  of  the  organization  of  his  army  on  this  march  shows 
there  were  several  regiments  in  it  from  New  York  and  Penn 
sylvania,  besides  one  from  Maryland  and  one  from  New  Jersey  (all 
four  middle  States) .  But  we  think  this,  like  other  reasons  assigned 
by  Colonel  Stone,  are  without  merit. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  87 

But,  as  we  have  said,  notwithstanding  all  these  things  which 
seemingly  discredit  the  reasons  assigned  by  Colonel  Stone  for  the 
non-genuineness  of  this  letter,  we  should  not  have  used  the  latter 
in  this  report,  had  not  the  substantial  statements  in  it  been  con 
firmed,  as  we  shall  now  see.  The  Myers'  letter  was  first  published 
on  October  29,  1883.  On  the  31st  of  July,  1865,  Captain  E.  J. 
Hale,  Jr.,  of  Fayetteville,  N.  C.,  who  had  been  on  General  James 
H.  Lane's  staff,  and  who  is  vouched  for  by  General  Lane  as  "an 
elegant  educated  gentleman,"  wrote  to  General  Lane,  telling  him  of 
the  destruction  and  devastation  at  his  home,  and  in  that  letter  he 
makes  this  statement: 

"You  have  doubtless  heard  of  Sherman's  'bummers.'  The 
Yankees  would  have  you  believe  that  they  were  only  the  straggling 
pillagers  usually  found  in  all  armies.  Several  Utters  written  by 
officers  of  Sherman's  army,  intercepted  near  this  town,  give  this  the 
lie. 

11  In  some  of  these  letters  were  descriptions  of  the  whole  bum 
ming  process,  and  from  them  it  appears  that  it  was  a  regularly 
organized  system,  under  the  authority  of  General  Sherman  himself ; 
that  one-fifth  of  the  proceeds  fell  to  General  Sherman,  another 
fifth  to  the  other  general  officers,  another  fifth  to  the  line  officers, 
and  the  remaining  two-fifths  to  the  enlisted  men." 

Now,  compare  this  division  of  the  spoils  with  that  set  forth  in 
the  Myers'  letter,  published,  as  we  have  said,  eighteen  years  later, 
and  it  will  be  seen  that  they  are  almost  identical,  and  this  state 
ment  was  taken,  as  Captain  Hale  states,  from  "  several  letters 
written  by  officers  of  Sherman's  army,"  intercepted  near  Fayette 
ville,  N.  C.,  and  as  we  have  said,  they  confirm  the  statements  of  the 
Myers'  letter,  and  its  consequent  genuineness,  to  a  remarkable  de 
gree.  It  is  proper,  also,  to  state,  that  we  have  recently  received 
a  letter  from  Dr.  Jones,  in  which  he  states  that  after  carefully  con 
sidering  this  whole  matter  again,  he  is  now  satisfied  that  he  was 
mistaken  in  his  editorial  comments  on  Colonel  Stone's  letter,  that 
he  is  now  satisfied  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Myers'  letter,  and  that 


88  Official  Reports  of  the 

in  his  opinion  we  could  use  it  in  this  report  "  with  perfect  pro 
priety  and  safety."* 

We  have  discussed  this  letter  thus  fully  because  we  feel  satisfied 
that  the  annals  of  warfare  disclose  nothing  so  venal  and  depraved. 
Imagine,  if  it  is  possible  to  do  so,  Robert  E.  Lee  and  Stonewall 
Jackson  commanding  an  army  licensed  by  them  to  plunder  the 
defenceless,  and  then  sharing  in  the  fruits  of  this  plundering ! 

We  can  barely  allude  to  Sherman's  burning  of  Columbia,  the 
proof  of  which  is  too  conclusive  to  admit  of  controversy.  On 
the  18th  December,  1864,  Genera  H.  W.  Halleck,  major-general, 
and  chief  of  staff  of  the  armies  of  the  United  States,  wrote  Sherman 
as  follows  :***** 

"  Should  you  capture  Charleston,  I  hope  that  by  some  accident 
the  place  may  be  destroyed,  and  if  a  little  salt  should  be  thrown 
upon  its  site,  it  may  prevent  the  future  growth  of  nullification  and 
secession." 

To  this  suggestion  from  this  high  (  ?)  source  to  commit  murder, 
arson  and  robbery,  and  pretend  it  was  by  accident,  Sherman  replied 
on  December  24,  1864,  as  follows : 

"  I  will  bear  in  mind  your  hint  as  to  Charleston,  and  do  not  think 
that  'salt'  will  be  necessary.  When  I  move  the  Fifteenth  Corps 
will  be  on  the  right  of  the  right  wing,  and  their  position  will 
naturally  bring  them  into  Charleston  first,  and  if  you  have  watched 
the  history  of  that  corps,  you  will  have  remarked  that  they  generally 
do  their  work  pretty  well;  the  truth  is  the  whole  army  is  burning 
with  an  insatiable  desire  to  wreak  vengeance  upon  South  Carolina. 
I  almost  tremble  for  her  fate,  but  feel  that  she  deserves  all  that 
seems  in  store  for  her.  I  look  upon  Columbia  as  quite  as  bad  as 
Charleston,  and  I  doubt  if  we  shall  spare  the  public  buildings  there, 
as  we  did  at  Milledgeville" 

2  Sherman's  Men.,  pages  223,  227-8. 


*  Since  this  report  was  submitted,  we  have  received  a  letter  from 
the  husband  of  the  lady  who  had  the  original  of  this  Myers'  letter, 
setting  forth  the  time,  place  and  all  the  circumstances  under  which  it 
was  found  the  day  after  Sherman's  army  left  Camden.  (It  was  found 
near  Camden,  and  not  on  the  streets  of  Columbia,)  and  these  state 
ments,  together  with  others  contained  in  this  letter  and  in  the  Myers' 
letter,  too,  established  the  genuineness  of  the  Myers'  letter,  in  our 
opinion,  beyond  any  and  all  reasonable  doubt. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  89 

We  say  proof  of  his  ordering  (or  permitting,  which  is  just  as 
bad)  the  destruction  of  Columbia  is  overwhelming.  (See  report 
of  Chancellor  Carroll,  Chairman  of  a  committee  appointed  to 
investigate  the  facts  about  this  in  General  Bradley  T.  Johnson's 
Life  of  Johnston,  from  which  several  of  these  extracts  are  taken.) 
Our  people  owe  General  Johnson  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  this  and  his 
other  contributions  to  Confederate  history.  And  Sherman  had  the 
effrontery  to  write  in  his  Memoirs,  that  in  his  official  report  of  this 
conflagration,  he  "  distinctly  charged  it  to  General  Wade  Hampton, 
and  (says)  I  confess  I  did  so  pointedly  ta  shake  the  faith  of  his  peo 
ple  in  'him!'  (See  2  Sherman's  Memoirs,  page  287.) 

The  man  who  confessed  to  the  world  that  he  made  this  false 
charge  with  such  a  motive  needs  no  characterization  at  the  hands 
of  this  Committee. 

General  Sherman  set  out  to  "  make  Georgia  howl,"  and  proposed, 
as  he  said,  to  "march  through  that  State  smashing  things  to  the 
sea."  He  wrote  to  Grant  after  his  march  through  South  Carolina, 
saying : 

"  The  people  of  South  Carolina,  instead  of  feeding  Lee's  army, 
will  now  call  on  Lee  to  feed  them." 

(2  Memoirs,  page  298.) 

So  complete  had  been  his  destruction  in  that  State,  he  also 
says: 

"Having  utterly  ruined  Columbia,  the  right  wing  began  its 
march  northward,"  &c. 

2  Memoirs,  page  288. 

On  the  21st  of  February,  1865,  only  a  few  days  after  the  burning 
of  Columbia,  General  Hampton  wrote  to  General  Sherman,  charging 
him  with  being  responsible  for  its  destruction,  and  other  outrages, 
in  which  he  said,  among  other  things : 

"  You  permitted,  if  you  have  not  ordered,  the  commission  of 
these  offences  against  humanity  and  the  rules  of  war.  You  fired 
into  the  city  of  Columbia  without  a  word  of  warning.  After  its 
surrender  by  the  Mayor,  who  demanded  protection  to  private 
property,  you  laid  the  whole  city  in  ashes,  leaving  amid  its  ruins 
thousands  of  old  men  and  helpless  women  and  children,  who  are 


90  Official  Reports  of  the 

likely  to  perish  of  starvation  and  exposure.  Your  line  of  march 
can  be  traced  by  the  lurid  light  of  burning  houses,  and  in  more 
than  one  household  there  is  an  agony  far  more  bitter  than  death. 

''  The  Indian  scalped  his  victim,  regardless  of  age  or  sex,  but 
with  all  his  barbarity,  he  always  respected  the  person  of  his  female 
captives.  Your  soldiers,  more  savage  than  the  Indian,  insult  those 
whose  natural  protectors  are  absent." 

3  Great  Civil  War,  601. 

SHERIDAN'S  ORDERS  AND  CONDUCT. 

But  whilst  no  one  will  dispute  the  fact  that  Sherman  has  a 
clear  title  to  the  distinction  we  have  accorded  him  in  this  report, 
yet,  unfortunately  for  the  people  of  the  South,  he  had  other  willing 
and  efficient  aids  in  his  work  of  devastation,  destruction  and  van 
dalism  ;  and  we  must  now  take  up,  for  a  time,  the  work  of  his  "  close 
second,"  General  Philip  H.  Sheridan.  This  officer  is  reputed  to 
have  said  that  the  true  principles  for  conducting  war  are — 

"  First.  Deal  as  hard  blows  to  the  enemy's  soldiers  as  possible, 
and  then  cause  so  much  suffering  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  country 
that  they  will  long  for  peace  and  press  their  government  to  make  , 
it."     "Nothing"  (he  says)  "should  be  left  to  the  people  but  eyes 
to  lament  the  war." 

He  certainly  acted  on  the  last  of  these  principles  in  his  dealings 
with  the  people  of  the  beautiful  Valley  of  Virginia,  which  by  his 
vandalism  was  converted  from  one  of  the  most  fertile  and  beautiful 
portions  of  our  land,  into  a  veritable  "  valley  of  the  shadow  of 
death."  He  actually  boasted  that  he  had  so  desolated  it,  that  "  a 
crow  flying  over  would  have  to  carry  his  own  rations." 

In  Sheridan's  letter  to  Grant,  dated  Woodstock,  October  7,  1864, 
he  says  of  his  work : 

"  In  moving  back  to  this  point  the  whole  country,  from  the  Blue 
Ridge  to  the  North  Mountain,  has  been  made  untenable  for  the 
rebel  army. 

"  I  have  destroyed  over  2,000  barns  filled  with  wheat  and  hay  and 
farming  implements;  over  70  mills  filled  with  flour  and  wheat; 
have  driven  in  front  of  the  army  over  4,000  head  of  stock,  and  have 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  91 

killed  and  issued  to  the  troops  not  less  than  3,000  sheep.  This 
destruction  embraces  the  Luray  Valley  and  Little  Fort  Valley,  as 
well  as  the  main  valley. 

"  A  large  number  of  horses  have  been  obtained,  a  proper  estimate 
of  which  I  cannot  now  make. 

"  Lieutenant  John  R.  Meigs,  my  engineer  officer,  was  murdered 
beyond  Harrisonburg,  near  Dayton.  For  this  atrocious  act  all  the 
houses  within  an  area  of  five  miles  were  burned." 

It  is  not  generally  known,  we  believe,  that  this  policy  of  de 
vastation  on  the  part  of  Sheridan  was  directly  inspired  and  ordered 
by  General  Grant,  who,  in  his  Memoirs,  writes  with  great  satisfac 
tion  and  levity  of  the  outrages  committed  by  Sherman,  before 
referred  to,  and  which  he,  of  course,  understood  would  be  com 
mitted,  from  the  terms  of  Sherman's  telegram  to  him,  and  which  he, 
at  the  least,  asquiesced  in. 

On  the  oth  of  August,  1864,  he  (Grant)  wrote  to  General  David 
Hunter,  who  preceded  Sheridan  in  command  of  the  Valley,  as 
follows,  viz. : 

"  In  pushing  up  the  Shenandoah  Valley,  where  it  is  expected  you 
will  have  to  go  first  or  last,  it  is  desirable  that  nothing  should  be 
left  to  invite  the  enemy  to  return.  Take  all  provisions,  forage  and 
stock  wanted  for  the  use  of  your  command;  such  as  cannot  be  con 
sumed  destroy."  *  * 

And  says  Mr.  Horace  Greely: 

"  This  order,  Sheridan,  in  returning  down  the  Valley,  executed 
to  the  letter.  Whatever  of  grain  and  forage  had  escaped  appro 
priation  by  one  or  another  of  the  armies  which  had  so  frequently 
chased  each  other  up  and  down  this  narrow  but  fertile  and  pro 
ductive  vale,  was  now  given  to  the  torch." 

2  Am.  Conflict,  610-11.     2  Grant's  Memoirs,  581,  364-5. 

The  facts  about  the  alleged  murder  of  Lieutenant  Meigs,  for 
which  Sheridan  says  he  burned  all  the  houses  in  an  area  of  five 
miles,  are  these:  Three  of  our  cavalry  scouts,  in  uniform,  and 
with  their  arms,  got  within  Sheridan's  lines,  and  encountered  Lieu 
tenant  Meigs,  with  two  Federal  soldiers.  These  parties  came  on 
each  other  suddenly.  Meigs  was  ordered  to  surrender  by  one  of 


92  Official  Reports  of  the 

our  men,  and  he  replied  by  shooting  and  wounding  this  man,  who, 
in  turn,  fired  and  killed  Meigs.  One  of  the  men  with  Meigs  was 
captured  and  the  other  escaped.  It  was  for  this  perfectly  justi 
fiable  conduct  in  war  that  Sheridan  says  he  ordered  all  the  houses 
of  private  citizens  within  an  area  of  five  miles  to  be  burned. 

(See  proof  of  facts  of  this  occurrence,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
Lieutenant  Meigs'  father,  9th  South.  His.  Society  Papers,  page 
77.) 

BUTLER'S  ORDER. 

Butler's  infamous  order  No.  28,  directing  that  any  lady  of  New 
Orleans  who  should  "  by  word,  gesture  or  movement  insult  or  show 
contempt  for  any  officer  or  soldier  of  the  United  States,  she  shall 
be  regarded  and  treated  as  a  woman  of  the  town,  plying  her  avoca 
tion,"  not  only  infuriated  the  people  of  the  South  and  caused  the 
author  to  be  "  outlawed  "  by  our  government,  and  denominated  the 
"beast,"  but  Lord  Palmerson,  in  the  British  House  of  Commons, 
"  took  occasion  to  be  astonished  to  blush  and  to  proclaim  his  deepest 
indignation  at  the  tenor  of  that  order."  (2  Greely,  p.  100.) 

But  we  are  sick  of  these  recitals,  and  must  conclude  our  report, 
already  longer  than  we  intended  it  should  be.  We  therefore  only 
allude  to  the  orders  found  on  the  person  of  Dahlgren,  to  burn,  sack 
and  destroy  the  city  of  Eichmond,  to  "kill  Jeff.  Davis  and  his 
Cabinet  on  the  spot,"  &c. 

The  infamous  deeds  of  General  Edward  A.  Wild,  both  in  Vir 
ginia  and  Georgia,  and  that  of  Colonel  John  McNiel  in  Missouri, 
Borne  of  which  can  be  found  set  forth  in  the  first  volume  of  the 
Southern  Historical  Papers,  at  pages  226  and  232,  are  shocking 
and  disgraceful  beyond  description. 

Now  contrast  with  all  these  orders  and  all  this  conduct  on  the 
part  of  the  Federal  officers  and  soldiers,  the  address  of  General 
Early  to  the  people  of  York,  Pa.,  when  our  army  invaded  that  State 
in  the  Gettysburg  campaign;  or,  better  still,  the  order  of  General 
Eobert  E.  Lee  to  his  army  on  that  march.  We  will  let  that  order 
speak  for  itself.  Here  it  is : 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  93 

"  Headquarters  A.  N.  V., 
"  Chambersburg,  Pa.,  June  27,  1863. 
"  GENERAL  ORDERS  No.  73. 

"The  commanding  general  has  marked  with  satisfaction  the 
conduct  of  the  troops  on  the  march  and  confidently  anticipates 
results  commensurate  with  the  high  spirit  they  have  manifested. 
No  troops  could  have  displayed  greater  fortitude  or  better  per 
formed  the  arduous  marches  of  the  first  ten  days.  Their  conduct 
in  other  respects  has,  with  few  exceptions,  been  in  keeping  with 
their  character  as  soldiers,  and  entitles  them  to  approbation  and 
praise. 

"  There  have,  however,  been  instances  of  f  orgetf  ulness  on  the 
part  of  some,  that  they  have  in  keeping  the  yet  unsullied  reputa 
tion  of  the  army,  and  the  duties  exacted  of  us  by  civilization  and 
Christianity  are  not  less  obligatory  in  the  country  of  the  enemy 
than  in  our  own.  The  commanding  general  considers  that  no 
greater  disgrace  could  befall  the  army,  and  through  it  to  our 
whole  people,  than  the  perpetration  of  the  barbarous  outrages 
jupon  the  innocent  and  defenceless  and  the  wanton  destruction  of 
I  private  property,  that  have  marked  the  course  of  the  enemy  in  our 
own  country.  Such  proceedings  not  only  disgrace  the  perpetrators 
and  all  connected  with  them,  but  are  subversive  of  the  discipline 
and  efficiency  of  the  army  and  destructive  of  the  ends  of  our 
present  movements.  It  must  be  remembered  that  we  make  war 
only  on  armed  men,  and  that  we  cannot  take  vengeance  for  the 
wrongs  our  people  have  suffered  without  lowering  ourselves  in  the 
eyes  of  all  whose  abhorrence  has  been  excited  by  the  atrocities  of 
our  enemy,  and  offending  against  Him  to  whom  vengeance  belong- 
eth,  without  whose  favor  and  support  our  efforts  must  all  prove  in 
vain.  The  commanding  general  therefore  earnestly  exhorts  the 
troops  to  abstain,  with  most  scrupulous  care,  from  unnecessary  or 
wanton  injury  to  private  property;  and  to  enjoin  upon  all  officers 
to  arrest  and  bring  to  summary  punishment  all  who  shall  in  any 
way  offend  against  the  orders  on  this  subject. 

"  R.  E.  LEE,  General." 


94  Official  Reports  of  the 

The  London  Times  commented  most  favorably  on  this  order,  and 
its  American  correspondent  said  of  it  and  of  the  conduct  of  our 
troops : 

"  The  greatest  surprise  has  been  expressed  to  me  by  officers  from 
the  Austrian,  Prussian  and  English  armies,  each  of  which  have 
representatives  here,  that  volunteer  troops,  provoked  by  nearly 
twenty-seven  months  of  unparalleled  ruthlessness  and  wantonness, 
of  which  their  country  has  been  the  scene,  should  be  under  such 
control,  and  should  be  willing  to  act  in  harmony  with  the  long 
suffering  and  forbearance  of  President  Davis  and  General  Lee" 

To  show  how  faithfully  that  order  was  carried  out,  the  same 

I  writer  tells  how  he  saw,  with  his  own  eyes,  General  Lee  and  a 

^surgeon  of  his  command  repairing  a  farmer's  fence  that  had  been 

damaged  by  the  army.     Indeed,  we  might  rest  our  whole  case  on 

the  impartial  judgment  of  a  distinguished  foreigner,  who,  writing 

in  1864,  drew  this  vivid  picture  and  striking  contrast  between  the 

way  the  war  was  conducted  on  our  part  and  on  that  of  the  Federals. 

He  says : 

"  This  contest  has  been  signalized  by  the  exhibition  of  some  of 
the  best  and  some  of  the  worst  qualities  that  war  has  ever  brought 
out.  It  has  produced  a  recklessness  of  human  life,  a  contempt 
of  principles,  a  disregard  of  engagements,  *  *  the  headlong 
adoption  of  the  most  lawless  measures,  the  public  faith  scandalously 
violated,  both  towards  friends  and  enemies;  the  liberty  of  the 
citizen  at  the  hands  of  arbitrary  power;  the  liberty  of  the  press 
abolished;  the  suspension  of  the  habeas  corpus  act;  illegal  imprison 
ments;  midnight  arrests;  punishments  inflicted  without  trial;  the 
courts  of  law  controlled  by  satellites  of  government;  elections  car 
ried  on  under  military  supervision;  a  ruffianism,  both  of  word  and 
action,  eating  deep  into  the  country*  *  * ;  the  must  brutal 
inhumanity  in  the  conduct  of  the  war  itself;  outrages  upon  the 
defenceless,  upon  women,  children  and  prisoners;  plunder,  rapine, 
devastation,  murder — all  the  old  horrors  of  barbarous  warfare  which 
Europe  is  beginning  to  be  ashamed  of,  and  new  refinements  of 
cruelty  thereto  added,  by  way  of  illustrating  the  advance  of  knowl 
edge." 

He  further  says : 


History  Committee,,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  95 

"  It  has  also  produced  qualities  and  phenomena  the  opposite  of 
these.  Ardour  and  devotedness  of  patriotism,  which  might  alone 
make  us  proud  of  the  century  to  which  we  belong;  a  unanimity 
such  as  was  probably  never  witnessed  before;  a  wisdom  in  legis 
lation,  a  stainless  good  faith  under  extremely  difficult  circumstances, 
a  clear  apprehension  of  danger,  coupled  with  a  determination  to 
face  it  to  the  uttermost;  a  resolute  abnegation  of  power  in  favor 
of  leaders  in  whom  those  who  selected  them  could  trust;  with  an 
equally  resolute  determination  to  reserve  the  liberty  of  criticism, 
and  not  to  allow  those  trusted  leaders  to  go  one  inch  beyond  their 
legal  powers;  a  heroism  in  the  field  and  behind  the  defences  of 
besieged  cities,  which  can  match  anything  that  history  has  to  show ; 
a  wonderful  helpfulness  in  supplying  needs  and  creating  fresh  re 
sources  ;  a  chivalrous  and  romantic  daring,  which  recalls  the  middle 
ages;  a  most  scrupulous  regard  for  the  rights  of  hostile  property; 
a  tender  consideration  for  the  vanquished  and  the  weak.  *  *  * 
And  the  remarkable  circumstance  is,  that  all  the  good  qualities  have 
been  on  the  one  side  and  all  the  bad  ones  on  the  other." 

In  other  words,  he  says  that  all  the  good  qualities  have  been 
on  the  side  of  the  South,  and  all  the  bad  ones  on  the  side  of  the 
North.  (See  Confederate  Secession,  by  the  Marquis  of  Lothian, 
p.  183.) 

And  all  this  was  written  prior  to  the  conduct  of  the  armies  under 
Sherman  and  Sheridan,  some  of  which  we  have  herein  set  forth. 
How  could  the  learned  Marquis  find  words  to  portray  those  things  ? 

We  could  cite  other  authorities  to,  substantially,  the  same  effect; 
but  surely  this  arraignment  from  this  high  source  ought  to  be 
sufficient.  If  any  one  thinks  this  distinguished  writer  has  over 
drawn  the  picture,  especially  in  regard  to  illegal  arrests  and  im 
prisonments  and  brutal  conduct  towards  women  and  children,  and 
the  defenceless  generally,  let  them  read  a  little  book  entitled,  "  The 
Old  Capital  and  its  Inmates"  which  has  inscribed  on  its  cover  what 
Mr.  Seward  boastingly  said  to  Lord  Lyons,  the  British  Minister 
at  Washington,  on  September  14,  1861,  viz. : 

"  My  Lord  "  (he  says),  "  I  can  touch  a  bell  on  my  right  hand  and 
order  the  arrest  of  a  citizen  of  Ohio.  I  can  touch  a  bell  again 


96  Official  Reports  of  the 

and  order  the  arrest  of  a  citizen  of  New  York.  Can  the  Queen 
of  England  in  her  dominions  do  as  much?" 

The  late  Judge  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  of  Pennsylvania,  at  one 
time  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  State,  and  after 
wards  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States  under  Mr.  Buchanan, 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  lawyers  and  writers  of  his  day,  thus 
writes  of  Mr.  Seward  and  his  little  bell : 

"  Now  as  to  the  little  bell.  The  same  Higher  Law  which  gave 
the  Federal  Government  power  to  legislate  against  the  States,  in 
defiance  of  the  Constitution,  would  logically  justify  any  executive 
outrage  that  might  be  desired  for  party  purposes,  on  the  life, 
liberty  and  property  of  individuals.  Such  was  Mr.  Seward's  theory, 
and  such  was  the  practice  of  himself  and  his  subordinates,  and 
some  of  his  colleagues/' 

He  says  further  to  Mr.  Charles  Frances  Adams  (to  whom  he 
was  writing)  : 

"  I  will  not  pain  you  by  a  recital  of  the  wanton  cruelties  they 
inflicted  upon  unoffending  citizens.  I  have  neither  space  nor  skill 
nor  time  to  paint  them.  A  life-size  picture  of  them  would  cover 
more  canvas  than  there  is  on  the  earth."  *  *  *  "  Since  the 
fall  of  Eobespierre  "  (he  says)  "nothing  has  occurred  to  cast  so 
much  disrepute  on  republican  institutions.  When  Mr.  Seward  went 
into  the  State  Department  he  took  a  little  bell  to  his  office,  in 
place  of  the  statute  book,  and  this  piece  of  sounding  brass  came  to 
be  a  symbol  of  the  Higher  Law.  When  he  desired  to  kidnap  a 
free  citizen,  to  banish  him,  to  despoil  him  of  his  property,  or  to 
kill  him  after  the  mockery  of  a  military  trial,  he  rang  his  little 
bell,  and  the  deed  was  done." 

(See  Black's  Essays,  page  153.) 

In  speaking  of  the  murder  of  Mrs.  Surratt,  he  says : 

"  In  1865,  months  after  the  peace,  at  the  political  capital  of 
the  nation,  in  full  sight  of  the  Executive  mansion,  the  Capitol  and 
the  City  Hall,  where  the  courts  were  in  session,  a  perfectly  innocent 
and  most  respectable  woman  was  lawlessly  dragged  from  her  family 
and  brutally  put  to  death,  without  judge  or  jury,  upon  the  mere 
order  of  certain  military  officers  convoked  for  that  purpose.  It  was, 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  97 

take  it  all  in  all,  as  foul  a  murder  as  ever  blackened  the  face  of 
God's  sky.  But  it  was  done  in  strict  accordance  with  Higher  Law, 
and  the  Law  Department  of  the  United  States  approved  it.'5 

Now  this  is  what  a  Northern  man,  living  in  Washington  at  the 
time,  a  profound  lawyer  and  statesman,  has  to  say  of  these  things. 

As  a  matter  of  course,  the  North  will  attempt  to  reply  (about 
the  only  reply  they  can  offer  with  any  apparent  justification)  : 
Well,  they  will  ask,  was  not  Chambersburg  burnt  by  General  Early's 
order?  Yes,  it  was;  but  under  circumstances  which  show  that 
that  act  was  no  justification  whatever  for  the  outrages  we  have  set 
forth  in  this  paper,  and  was  only  resorted  to  by  General  Early  by 
way  of  retaliation,  and  to  try,  if  possible,  to  stop  the  outrages  then 
being  committed.  It  was  only  resorted  to,  too,  after  full  warning 
and  an  offer  to  the  municipal  authorities  of  Chambersburg  to  pre 
vent  the  conflagration  by  paying  for  certain  private  property  just 
previously  destroyed  by  General  Hunter.  But  this  offer  these 
authorities  refused  to  accede  to,  saying  "  they  were  not  afraid  of 
having  their  town  burned,  and  that  a  Federal  force  was  approach 
ing."  General  Early  says  in  his  report : 

"  I  desired  to  give  the  people  of  Chambersburg  an  opportunity 
of  saving  their  town  by  making  compensation  for  part  of  the  injury 
done,  and  hoped  that  the  payment  of  such  a  sum  (one  hundred 
thousand  dollars  in  gold,  or  five  hundred  thousand  in  greenbacks) 
would  have  the  desired  effect,  and  open  the  eyes  of  the  people  of 
other  towns  at  the  North  to  the  necessity  of  urging  upon  their 
government  the  adoption  of  a  different  policy." 

(See  Early's  Memoirs,  where  the  full  report  of  this  occurrence 
is  given.) 

Among  the  private  property  destroyed  by  Hunter,  for  which 
this  sum  was  demanded  by  General  Early,  were  the  private  resi 
dences  of  Andrew  Hunter,  Esq.  (then  a  member  of  the  Senate 
of  Virginia,  who  had  prosecuted  John  Brown  as  Commonwealth's 
Attorney  of  Jefferson  county,  Va.)  ;  of  Alexander  R.  Boteler,  Esq. 
(an  ex-member  of  the  Confederate  and  United  States  Congresses), 
and  of  Edmund  J.  Lee,  Esq.  (a  relative  of  General  Lee),  with  their 


98  Official  Reports  of  the 

contents,  only  time  enough  having  been  given  the  ladies  to  get  out 
of  these  houses. 

General  Hunter  had  also  just  caused  the  Virginia  Military 
Institute,  the  house  of  Governor  Letcher,  and  numerous  other 
houses  in  the  Valley,  to  be  burned.  Even  General  Halleck,  writing 
to  General  Sherman  on  September  28,  1864,  refers  thus  to  this 
conduct  of  Hunter.  He  says : 

"  I  do  not  approve  of  General  Hunter's  course  in  burning  private 
houses  or  uselessly  destroying  private  property.  That  is  barbar 
ous/'  *  * 

See  2  Sherman's  Mem.,  page  129. 

No  soldier  in  the  Confederate  army  understood  better  than 
General  Early  the  rules  of  civilized  warfare,  or  was  more  opposed 
to  vandalism  in  every  form.  His  conduct  at  York,  Pa.,  before 
referred  to,  and  his  address  to  the  people  of  that  town,  show  this 
in  the  most  satisfactory  manner.  He  says : 

"  I  have  abstained  from  burning  the  railroad  buildings  and  car 
shops  in  your  town  because,  after  examination,  I  am  satisfied  that 
the  safety  of  the  town  would  be  endangered.  Acting  in  the  spirit 
of  humanity,  which  has  ever  characterized  my  government  and  its 
military  authorities,  I  do  not  desire  to  involve  the  innocent  in  the 
same  punishment  with  the  guilty.  Had  I  applied  the  torch  with 
out  regard  to  consequences,  I  would  have  pursued  a  course  which 
would  have  been  fully  vindicated  as  an  act  of  just  retaliation  for  the 
unparalleled  acts  of  brutality  on  our  soil.  But  we  do  not  war  upon 
women  and  children." 

General  E.  H.  Anderson,  in  his  report  of  the  Gettysburg  cam 
paign,  says : 

"  The  conduct  of  my  troops  was  in  the  highest  degree  praise 
worthy.  Obedient  to  the  order  of  the  commanding  general,  they 
refrained  from  retaliating  upon  the  enemy  for  outrages  inflicted 
upon  their  homes.  Peaceable  inhabitants  suffered  no  molestation. 
In  a  land  of  plenty,  they  often  suffered  hunger  and  want.  One- 
fourth  their  number  marched  ragged  and  bare-footed  through  towns 
in  which  merchants  were  known  to  have  concealed  ample  supplies 
of  clothing  and  shoes." 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  99 

On  the  2nd  of  July,  1863,  when  the  battle  of  Gettysburg  was 
being  fought,  and  when  President  Davis  had  every  reason  to  believe 
we  would  be  victorious,  he  wrote : 

"  My  whole  purpose  is,  in  one  word,  to  place  this  war  on  the 
footing  of  such  as  are  waged  by  civilized  people  in  modern  times, 
and  to  divest  it  of  the  savage  character  which  has  been  impressed 
on  it  by  our  enemies,  in  spite  of  all  our  efforts  and  protests." 
Hoke's  Great  Invasion,  p.  52. 

Of  course,  we  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  there  were  not  indi 
vidual  cases  of  depredation  committed,  and  even  on  our  own 
people,  by  some  of  our  soldiers.  Indeed,  it  was  often  necessary 
for  our  army  to  subsist  on  the  country  through  which  it  marched, 
which  was  perfectly  legitimate.  And  when  we  remember  the  suf 
ferings  and  privations  to  which  our  armies  had  to  be  subjected  by 
reason  of  our  lack  of  necessary  supplies  of  almost  all  kinds,  it  is 
amazing  that  so  little  "  foraging "  was  done  by  our  men.  But 
what  we  do  contend  for  and  state,  without  the  least  fear  of  contra 
diction,  is  that  the  conflict  was  conducted  throughout  on  the  part 
of  the  South — by  the  Government  at  home  and  the  officers  in  the 
field1 — upon  the  highest  principles  of  civilized  warfare;  that  if 
these  were  ever  departed  from,  it  was  done  without  the  sanction 
and  against  the  orders  of  the  Confederate  authorities.  And  that 
exactly  the  reverse  of  this  is  true  as  to  the  Federal  authorities,  we 
have  established  by  the  most  overwhelming  mass  of  testimony,  fur 
nished  almost  entirely  from  Northern  sources. 

But  we  cannot  protract  this  paper;  it  is  already  much  longer 
than  we  intended  or  desired  it  should  be.  We  would  like  to  have 
embraced  in  it  a  full  discussion  of  the  treatment  of  prisoners  on 
both  sides;  but  we  must  leave  this,  and  the  treatment  of  Mr. 
Davis  whilst  a  prisoner,  for  some  future  report.  If  any  one  de 
sires,  in  advance  of  that,  to  see  a  full  discussion  of  these  subjects, 
we  refer,  as  to  the  former,  to  the  very  able  articles  by  Eev.  J. 
William  Jones,  D.  D.,  in  Vol.  I.,  Southern  Historical  Society  Pa 
pers,  beginning  with  page  113,  and  running  through  several  num 
bers  of  that  volume,  in  which  he  adduces  a  mass  of  testimony,  and 
completely  vindicates  the  South.  He  shows — 


100  Official  Reports  of  the 

(1)   (As  Mr.  Davis  states  it)  "From  the  reports  of  the  United 

I  States  War  Department,  that  though  we  had  sixty  thousand  more 

Federal  prisoners  than  they  had  of   Confederates,  six  thousand 

more  Confederates  died  in  Northern  prisons  than  died  of  Federals 

in  Southern  prisons." 

(£')  That  the  laws  of  the  Confederate  Congress,  the  regulations 
of  our  Surgeon-General,  the  orders  of  our  generals  in  the  field, 
and  those  who  had  the  immediate  charge  of  prisoners,  all  provided 
that  they  should  be  kindly  treated,  supplied  with  the  same  rations 
that  our  soldiers  had,  and  cared  for  when  sick  in  hospitals  and 
placed  on  precisely  the  same  footing  as  Confederate  soldiers. 

( 3 )  If  these  regulations  were  violated  by  subordinates  in  individ 
ual  instances,  it  was  done  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  the 
Confederate  authorities,  which  promptly  rebuked  and  punished  any 
case  reported. 

(4)  If  any  prisoners  failed  to  get  full  rations,  or  had  those  of 
inferior  quality,  the  Confederate  soldiers  suffered  the  same  priva 
tions,  and  these  were  the  necessary  consequences  of  the  mode  of 
carrying  on  the  war  on  the  part  of  the  North,  which  brought  deso 
lation  and  ruin  on  the  South,  and  these  conditions  were  necessarily 
reflected  on  their  prisoners  in  our  hands. 

(5)  That   the   mortality    in    Southern   prisons   resulted    from 
causes  beyond  our  control,  but  these  could  have  been  greatly  alle 
viated  had  not  medicines  been  declared  by  the  Federal  Government 
as  "  contraband  of  war/'  and  had  not  the  Federal  authorities  re 
fused  the  offer  of  our  Agent  of  Exchange,  the  late  Judge  Quid, 
that  each  Government  should  send  its  own  surgeons  and  medicines 
to  relieve  the  sufferings  of  their  respective  soldiers  in  prisons — re 
fused  to  accept  our  offer  to  let  them  send  medicines,  &c.,  to  relieve 
their  own  prisoners,  without  any  such  privilege  being  accorded  by 
them  to  us — refused  to  allow  the  Confederate  Government  to  buy 
medicines  for  gold,  tobacco,  or  cotton,  &c.,  which  it  offered  to 
pledge  its  honor  should  only  be  used  for  their  prisoners  in  our 
hands — refused  to  exchange  sick  and  wounded,  and  neglected  from 
August  to  December,  1864,  to  accede  to  our  Agent's  proposition 
to  send  transportation  to  Savannah  and  receive  without  any  equiv~ 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  101 

alent  from  ten  to  fifteen  thousand  Federal  prisoners,  although  the 
offer  was  accompanied  with  the  statement  of  our  Agent  of  Ex 
change  (Judge  Ould),  showing  the  monthly  mortality  at  Ander- 
sonville,  and  that  we  were  utterly  unable  to  care  for  these  pris 
oners  as  they  should  be  cared  for,  and  that  Judge  Ould  again  and 
again  urged  compliance  with  this  humane  proposal  on  our  part. 
(6)  That  the  sufferings  of  Confederates  in  Northern  prisons 
were  terrible,  almost  beyond  description;  that  they  were  starved 
in  a  land  of  plenty;  that  they  were  allowed  to  freeze  where  cloth 
ing  and  fuel  were  plentiful;  that  they  suffered  for  hospital  stores, 
medicines  and  proper  attention  when  sick;  that  they  were  shot 
by  sentinels,  beaten  by  officers,  and  subjected  to  the  most  cruel 
punishments  upon  the  slightest  pretexts ;  that  friends  at  the  North 
were,  in  many  instances,  refused  the  privilege  of  clothing  their 
nakedness  or  feeding  them  when  they  were  starving ;  and  that  these 
outrages  were  often  perpetrated  not  only  with  the  knowledge,  but 
by  the  orders  of  E.  M.  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United 
States. 

And  (7)  That  the  sufferings  of  prisoners  on  both  sides  were 
caused  by  the  failure  to  carry  out  the  terms  of  the  Cartel  for  ex 
change,  and  for  this  failure  the  Federal  authorities  were  alone  re 
sponsible. 

These  propositions  are  stated  substantially  in  the  language  em 
ployed  by  Dr.  Jones,  and  although  twenty-five  years  have  since 
elapsed,  they  have  never  been  controverted  in  any  essential  par 
ticular,  as  far  as  we  have  heard  or  known.  Our  people  owe  Dr. 
Jones  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  this  able  and  effective  vindication  of 
their  course  in  this  important  matter,  which  they  can  never  repay. 
As  to  the  treatment  of  Mr.  Davis  whilst  a  prisoner : 
Captain  Charles  M.  Blackford,  of  Lynchburg,  Va.,  in  an  article 
read  before  the  Virginia  Bar  Association  at  its  meeting  at  Old 
Point,  in  1900  (the  facts  of  which  article  were  taken  entirely 
from  the  official  records  of  the  Federal  Government),  showed  in 
a  masterly  manner  that  this  treatment  was  the  refinement  of 
cruelty  and  cowardice  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  authorities,  and 
such  as  should  bring  the  blush  of  shame  to  the  cheek  of  every 


102  Official  Reports  of  the 

American  citizen  who  was  in  sympathy  with,  or  a  participant  in, 
those  acts.     Our  people  owe  Captain  Blackford  a  debt  of  gratitude 
also  for  this  article.     It  can  be  found  in  the  printed  reports  of 
the  Virginia  Bar  Association  for  1900.     Ten  thousand  copies  of 
it  were  ordered  by  the  Association  to  be  printed  for  distribution. 
As  we  said  in  our  last  report,  it  will  doubtless  be  asked  by 
some,,  who  have  no  just  conception  of  the  motives  which  actuate 
us  in  making  these  reports,  Why  we  gather  up  and  exhibit  to 
the  world  these  records  of  a  bitter  strife  now  ended  more  than  a 
third  of  a  century?     Does  it  not,  they  ask,  only  do  harm  by  keep 
ing  alive  the  smouldering  embers  of  that  conflict?     We   reply 
to  all  these  enquiries,  that  such  is  not  our  intention  or  desire. 
But  the  four  years  of  that  war  made  a  history  of  the  people  of 
the  North  and  of  the  people  of  the  South,  much  of  which  has 
been  written  only  by  historians  of  the  North.     In  this  history, 
all  the  blame  concerning  the  war  has  been  laid  on  the  people  of 
the  South,  and  the  attempt  made  to  "  consign  them  to  infamy." 
There  were  two  sides  to  the  issues  involved  in  that  war,  and  the 
•historians  of  the  North,  with  the  superior  means  at  their  com 
mand,  have  used,  and  are  still  using,  these  means  to  convince 
the  world  that  they  were  right  and  that  we  were  wrong.     They 
are  striving,  too,  to  teach  our  children  that  this  was  the  case,  and 
for  thirty  years  their  histories  were  taught  in  our  schools,  un 
challenged,  and  in  that  way  the  minds  of  our  children  were  pre 
judiced  and  poisoned  against  the  acts  and  conduct  of  their  parents 
in  regard  to  that  conflict.     We  therefore  feel  that  we  owe  it  to 
ourselves  and  to  the  memories  of  those  who  suffered  and  died  for 
the  cause  we  fought  so  hard  to  maintain,  to  let  our  children  and 
the  world  know  the  truth  as  to  the  causes  of  that  conflict,  and  how 
it  was  conducted.     This  Camp  has,  as  we  have  said,  done  much 
in  that  direction;  it  can  do  much  more;  a/nd,  in  our  opinion,  no 
higher  or  more  sacred  duty  could  be  imposed  on  or  undertaken  by 
men. 

There  were  during  the  war,  and  there  are  now,  many  brave 
and  true  men  at  the  North.  There  were  many  such  in  the  Feder 
al  armies,  and  there  were  many  of  these  who,  whilst  taking  sides 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  103 

with  the  North  on  the  question  of  maintaining  the  Union,  were 
shocked  and  disgusted  at  the  methods  pursued  by  it  to  accom 
plish  that  result.  These  have  written  and  spoken  about  these 
methods,  both  of  what  they  thought  and  of  what  they  knew, 
and  we  have  only  gathered  up  some  of  this  testimony  in  support 
of  the  justice  of  our  cause,  and  of  the  course  pursued  by  us  to 
maintain  it.  Surely,  the  North  cannot  complain  if  we  rest  our 
case  upon  their  testimony.  We  have  done  this  almost  exclusively, 
both  in  this  and  in  former  reports.  The  history  contained  in 
these  reports,  then,  is  not  only  that  made,  but  also  that  written 
by  Northern  men. 

As  we  have  said,  many  of  these  were  brave  and  true  men, 
and  one  of  them  wrote  that  the  acts  committed  by  some  of  their 
commanders  and  comrades  were  enough  to  make  him  "ashamed 
of  the  flag  that  waved  over  him  as  he  went  into  battle."  Is  it 
surprising  that  such  was  the  case? 

It  is  said  that  General  Hunter  had  to  deprive  forty  of  his 
commissioned  officers  of  their  commands  before  he  could  find  one 
to  carry  into  execution  his  infamous  orders. 

We  have  drawn  this  contrast,  then,  between  the  way  the  war 
was  conducted  by  the  North  and  the  way  it  was  conducted  by 
the  South,  for  many  good  reasons,  but  especially  to  show  that  the 
Confederate  soldiers  never  made  war  on  defenceless  women  and 
children,  whilst  the  Federal  soldiers  did,  and  that  this  was  done 
with  the  sanction  of  some  of  their  most  noted  leaders,  some  of 
whom,  as  we  have  seen,  shared  in  the  fruits  of  the  depredations 
committed  on  these  defenceless  people.  In  doing  this,  we  believe 
we  have  done  only  what  was  just  to  ourselves  and  our  children. 

It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  a  large  number  of  persons 
at  the  North  still  delight  to  speak  of  that  war  as  a  "Rebellion" 
and  of  us  as  "Rebels"  and  "Traitors."  We  have  shown  by  the 
testimony  of  their  own  people,  not  only  that  they  rebelled  against, 
but  overthrew  the  Constitution  to  make  war  on  us,  and  that  when 
they  did  go  to  war,  they  violated  every  rule  they  had  laid  down 
for  the  government  of  their  armies,  and  waged  it  with  a  savage 
cruelty  unknown  in  the  history  of  civilization. 


104  Official  Reports  of  the 

The  late  commander-in-chief  of  the  British  armies  has  re 
cently  written  of  our  great  leader,  that  "in  a  long  and  varied  life 
of  wandering,  I  have"  (he  says)  "only  met  two  men  whom  I 
prized  as  being  above  all  the  world  I  have  ever  Known,  and  the 
greater  of  these  two  was  General  Lee,  America's  greatest  man, 
as  I  understand  history/' 

The  present  Chief  Magistrate  of  this  country  wrote  twelve  years 
ago,  that  "the  world  has  never  seen  better  soldiers  than  those 
who  followed  Lee,  and  that  their  leader  will  undoubtedly  rank 
as,  without  any  exception,  the  greatest  of  all  great  captains  that 
the  English-speaking  people  have  brought  forth."  See  Life  of 
Benton,  page  38. 

Is  it  a  matter  of  surprise,  then,  that  the  same  hand  should  have 
recently  written: 

"  I  am  extremely  proud  of  the  fact  that  one  of  my  uncles  was 
an  admiral  in  the  Confederate  Navy,  and  that  another  fired  the 
last  gun  fired  aboard  the  Alabama.  I  think''  (he  says)  "the  time 
has  now  come  when  we  can,  all  of  us,  be  proud  of  the  valor 
shown  on  both  sides  in  the  civil  war." 

If  President  Eoosevelt  really  believed  that  his  uncles  were 
ever  "rebels"  and  "traitors,"  would  he  be  "extremely  proud"  of 
that  fact?  Would  he  be  proud  to  be  the  nephew  of  Benedict 
Arnold?  No;  and  no  man  at  the  North  who  knows  anything  of 
the  formation  of  this  Government  believes  fotf  a  moment  that 
any  Confederate  soldier  was  a  "rebel"  or  "traitor,"  or  that  the 
war  on  our  part  was  a  "Rebellion."  Even  Goldwin  Smith,  the 
harshest  and  most  unjust  historian  to  the  South,  who  has  ever 
written  about  the  war  (as  demonstrated  by  our  distinguished 
Past  Grand  Commander,  Captain  Cussons),  says: 

"The  Southern  leaders  ought  not  to  have  been  treated  as  rebels," 
for,  says  he,  "Secession  was  not  a  rebellion." 

And  so  we  say  the  time  has  come  when  these  intended  oppro 
brious  epithets  should  cease  to  be  used.  But  whether  called 
"rebels"  or  not,  the  Confederate  soldier  has  nothing  to  be  ashamed 
of.  Can  the  soldiers  of  the  Federal  armies  read  this  record  and 
say  the  same? 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  105 

Yes,  our  comrades,  let  them  call  us  "rebels,"  if  they  will;  we 
are  proud  of  the  title,  and  with  good  reason.  More  than  a  hun 
dred  years  ago,  when,  as  Pitt  said,  "even  the  chimney  sweeps 
in  London  streets  talked  boastingly  of  their  subjects  in  America," 
Rebel  was  the  uniform  title  of  those  despised  subjects  (and  as 
our  own  eloquent  Keily  once  said)  : 

"This  sneer  was  the  substitute  for  argument,  which  Camden 
and  Chatham  met  in  the  Lords,  and  Burke  and  Barre  in  the 
Commons,  as  their  eloquent  voices  were  raised  for  justice  to  the 
Americans  of  the  last  century.  'Disperse  Rebels'  was  the  opening 
gun  at  Lexington.  'Rebels'  was  the  sneer  of  General  Gage  ad 
dressed  to  the  brave  lads  of  Boston  Commons.  It  was  the  title 
by  which  Dunmore  attempted  to  stigmatize  the  Burgesses  of  Vir 
ginia,  and  Sir  Henry  Clinton  passionately  denounced  the  patriotic 
women  of  New  York.  At  the  base  of  every  statue  which  gratitude 
has  erected  to  patriotism  in  America  you  will  find  'Rebel'  writ 
ten.  The  springing  shaft  at  Bunker  Hill,  the  modest  shaft 
which  tells  where  Warren  fell,  *  *  *  the  fortresses  which  line 
our  coasts,  the  name  of  our  Country's  Capital,  the  very  streets  of 
our  cities — all  proclaim  America's  boundless  debt  to  rebels;  not 
only  to  rebels  who,  like  Hamilton  and  Warren,  gave  their  first 
love  and  service  to  the  young  Republic,  but  rebels  who,  like  Frank 
lin  and  Washington,  broke  their  oath  of  allegiance  to  become 
rebels." 

And  so  we  say,  let  them  call  us  what  they  may,  the  justice 
of  our  cause  precludes  fear  on  our  part  as  to  the  final  verdict  of 
history.  We  can  commit  the  principles  for  which  we  fought;  we 
can  confide  the  story  of  our  deeds;  we  can  consign  the  heritage 
of  heroism  we  have  bequeathed  the  world  to  posterity  with  the 
confident  expectation  of  justice  at  the  hands  of  the  coming  his 
torian. 

"  In  seeds  of  laurel  in  the  earth 

The  blossoms  of  your  fame  is  blown, 
And  somewhere  waiting  for  its  birth 
The  shaft  is  in  the  stone." 

Yes,  truly. 

"The  triumphs  of  might  are  transient — they  pass  and  are  for- 


106  Official  Reports  of  the 

gotten — the  sufferings  of  right  are  graven  deepest  in  the  chron 
icle  of  nations." 

We  have  nothing  to  add  to  what  has  been  stated  in  our  former 
reports  about  the  histories  now  used  in  our  schools,  since,  as  has 
been  stated,  we  think  they  are  the  best  now  obtainable. 

We  are  glad  to  note  that  the  Eev.  J.  William  Jones,  D.  D.,  has 
had  issued  a  new  edition  of  his  school  history  of  the  United  States, 
which  is  a  great  improvement  on  the  first  edition,  and  that  he  is 
now  preparing  an  edition  for  use  in  High  Schools  and  Colleges. 
We  are  also  informed  that  the  Rev.  Henry  Alexander  White,  D. 
D.,  of  Washington  and  Lee  University,  has  in  press  a  history  of 
the  United  States.  Judging  from  Dr.  White's  Life  of  General 
Lee,  we  shall  be  disappointed  if  his  book  is  not  a  good  one. 

We  hail  the  advent  of  these  works  by  Southern  authors  with 
the  greatest  interest  and  pleasure,  and  we  feel  satisfied  that  they 
are  the  natural  and  logical  outcome  of  the  efforts  made  by  these 
Confederate  Camps  to  have  the  Truth  taught  to  our  children.  As 
we  said  in  our  last  report,  so  we  repeat  here :  We  ask  for  nothing 
more,  and  will  be  satisfied  with  nothing  less. 
Fiat  justicia  ruat  coelum. 

GEORGE  L.  CHRISTIAN, 

Chairman. 


REPORT 

BY 

HON.  GEO.  L.  CHRISTIAN, 

Chairman. 

ON   THE  TREATMENT  AND   EXCHANGE   OF  PRISONERS. 


October  23,  1902. 


REPORT  OF  OCTOBER  23,  1902. 


To  the  Grand  Camp  of  Confederate  Veterans  of  Virginia: 

Your  History  Committee  again  returns  its  thanks  to  you,  and 
the  public,  for  the  very  cordial  way  in  which  you  have  shown  your 
appreciation  of  its  labors.,  as  contained  in  its  last  three  reports.  It 
may  interest  you  to  know,  that  whilst  these  reports  have  been  pub 
lished  and  scattered  broadcast  over  this  land,  no  attempt  has  been 
made  to  controvert  or  deny  any  principle  contended  for,  or  fact 
asserted,  in  any  of  them,  so  far  as  we  have  heard.  We  think  we 
can,  therefore,  justly  claim  that  the  following  facts  have  been  estab 
lished  : 

First.  That  the  South  did  not  go  to  war  to  maintain,  or  to  per 
petuate,  the  institution  of  slavery. 

Second.  The  right  of  secession  (the  real  issue  of  the  war},  and 
that  this  right  was  first  asserted  at  the  North,  and  as  clearly  recog 
nized  there  as  at  the  South. 

Third.  That  the  North,  and  not  the  South,  was  the  aggressor  in 
bringing  on  the  war. 

Fourth.  That  on  the  part  of  the  South  the  war  was  conducted 
according  to  the  principles  of  civilized  warfare,  whilst  on  the  part 
of  the  North  it  was  conducted  in  the  most  inhuman  and  barbarous 
manner. 

The  last  of  the  above  named  was  the  subject  of  our  last  re 
port,  in  which  we  drew  a  contrast  between  the  way  the  war  was 
conducted  on  our  part,  and  the  way  it  was  conducted  by  our 
quondam  enemies,  which,  we  think,  was  greatly  to  the  credit  of 
the  South.  The  subject  of  this  report,  the 

"  TREATMENT  AND  EXCHANGE  OF  PRISONERS/' 

is  really  a  continuation  and  further  discussion  of  the  contrast 
begun  in  that  report  and  a  necessary  sequel  to  that  discussion. 
The  further  treatment  of  this  subject  becomes  most  important, 
too,  from  the  fact  that  our  people  know  very  little  about  the 

[109] 


110  Official  Reports  of  the 

true  state  of  the  case,  whilst  both  during  and  since  the  war,  the 
people  of  the  North,  with  the  superior  means  at  their  command, 
have  denounced  and  maligned  the  South  and  its  leaders  as  mur 
derers  and  assassins,  and  illustrated  these  charges  by  the  alleged 
inhuman  and  barbarous  way  in  which  the  South  treated  their  pris 
oners  during  the  late  war :  e.  g.,  the  late  James  G.  Elaine,  of  Maine, 
said  on  the  floor  of  the  United  States  Congress  in  1876 : 

"Mr.  Davis  was  the  author,  knowingly,  deliberately,  guiltily  and 
wilfully  of  the  gigantic  murder  and  crime  at  Andersonville,  and 
I  here  before  God,  measuring  my  words,  knowing  their  full  ex 
tent  and  import,  declare,  that  neither  the  deeds  of  the  Duke  of 
Alva  in  the  Low  Countries,  nor  the  massacre  of  Saint  Bartholo 
mew,  nor  the  thumb-screws  and  engines  of  torture  of  the  Spanish 
Inquisition,  begin  to  compare  in  atrocity  with  the  hideous  crimes 
of  Andersonville  •"  and  he  quoted  and  endorsed  a  report  of  a  com 
mittee  of  the  Federal  Congress  made  during  the  war,  in  which  they 
say: 

"  No  pen  can  describe,  no  painter  sketch,  no  imagination  com 
prehend,  its  fearful  and  unutterable  iniquity.  It  would  seem  that 
the  concentrated  madness  of  earth  and  hell  had  found  its  final 
lodgment  in  the  breasts  of  those  who  had  inaugurated  the  rebel 
lion  and  controlled  the  policy  of  the  Confederate  Government,  and 
that  the  prison  at  Andersonville  had  been  selected  for  the  most 
terrible  human  sacrifice  which  the  world  had  ever  seen." 

It  is  true  that  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Elaine  was  denied, 
and  its  falsity  fully  shown  by  both  Mr.  Davis  and  Senator  Hill, 
of  Georgia;  and  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Federal  Con 
gress,  and  an  equally  slanderous  and  partisan  publication  entitled 
''Narration  of  Sufferings  in  Kebel  Military  Prisons"  (with  hideous 
looking  skeleton  illustrations  of  alleged  victims),  issued  by  the 
United  States  Sanitary  Commission  in  1864,  were  fully  answered 
by  a  counter  report  of  a  committee  of  the  Confederate  Congress. 
And  it  is  also  true  that  in  1876,  the  Rev.  John  William  Jones, 
D.  D.,  who  was  then  editing  the  Southern  Historical  Society  Pa 
pers,  made  a  full  and  masterly  investigation  and  report  on  this 
subject,  vindicating  the  South  and  its  leaders  from  these  asper- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  Ill 

sions  (for  which  work,  as  said  in  our  last  report,  the  Southern 
people  owe  Dr.  Jones  a  lasting  debt  of  gratitude).     (The  letter 
of  Mr.  Davis,  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Confederate  Con 
gress,  with  other  valuable  material  collected  by  Dr.  Jones,  are  all 
published  in  the  first  volume  of  the  Southern  Historical  Papers, 
and  also  in  a  separate  volume.)     But  whilst  these  publications 
were  most  satisfactory  to  us  at  the  time,  they,  necessarily,  did  not 
contain  the  contemporaneous  correspondence  in  reference  to  the 
exchange  and  treatment  of  prisoners,  contained  in  the  publication 
known  as  "Rebellion  Official  Records,"  published  by  the  Federal 
Government  since  that  time — a  correspondence  invaluable,   as  it 
makes  the  representatives  of  the  two   Governments,  at  the  time, 
tell,  in  their  own  way,  the  true  story  of  these  events.     It  is  from 
these  letters  and  other  contemporaneous  orders  and  papers,  that 
we  propose  to  show  which  side  was  responsible  for  Andersonville, 
Salisbury,  "The  Libby,"  and  "Belle  Isle,"  in  the  South,  and  for 
Camp  Douglas,  Gratiot  Street,  Fort  Delaware,  Johnson's  Island, 
Elmira,  Point  Lookout,  and  other  like  places  in  the  North.     In 
doing  this  we  do  not  think  it  either  necessary  or  proper  to  revive 
the  tales  of  horror  and  misery  contained  in  many  of  the  personal 
recitals  of  the  captives  on  either  side,  such  as  are  collected  in  the 
works  of  Dr.  Jones,  the  "Sanitary  Commission,"  and  others.  Many 
of  these  are  simply  heart-sickening  and  disgusting;  and,  making 
allowances  for  all  exaggerations  necessarily  incident  to  the  sur 
roundings  of  the  writers,  there  is  enough  in  them  to  convince  any 
candid  reader  that  there  were  cruelties  and  abuses   inflicted  on 
helpless  prisoners,  by  petty  officers  and  guards,  that  should  never 
have  been  inflicted,  and  which  we  hope  the  higher  officers  of  neither 
government  would  have  permitted  or  tolerated  for  a  moment. 

But  what  we  are  concerned  about  is,  to  show  by  these  "official 
records"  that  neither  Mr.  Davis,  nor  any  Department  or  representa 
tive  of  the  Confederate  Government,  was  responsible  for  the  estab 
lishment  of  these  prisons,  and  the  sufferings  therein,  as  heretofore 
charged  by  our  enemies,  and  that  the  Federal  Government,  through 
Edwin  M.  Stanton,  H.  W.  Halleck,,  and  U.  $.  Grant  as  its  repre 
sentative  actors,  was  directly  and  solely  responsible  for  the  estab- 


112  Official  Reports  of  the 

lishment  of  these  places,  and  consequently  for  all  the  sufferings 
and  deaths  which  occurred  therein. 

The  reports  and  correspondence  relative  to  the  exchange  and 
treatment  of  prisoners  fill  four  of  the  large  volumes  of  the  "Re 
bellion  Records/'  and  whilst  we  have  striven  to  tell  the  full  story, 
or  rather,  to  omit  nothing  essential  to  the  truth,  it  is  simply  im 
possible,  within  the  limits  of  this  report,  to  do  more  than  call  at 
tention  to  some  of  the  more  important  and  salient  features  of  the 
correspondence,  etc.,  and  only  to  an  extent  necessary  to  disclose 
the  real  conditions  at  the  several  dates  referred  to.  This  is  all 
that  we  have  attempted  to  do,  but  we  have  tried  to  do  this  faith 
fully. 

THE  POLICY  OF  THE  CONFEDERATE  GOVERNMENT  AS  SHOWN  BY 
ACTS  OF  CONGRESS,  ETC. 

To  show  the  declared  purpose  and  policy  of  the  Confederate 
Government  towards  prisoners  of  war  from  the  beginning: 
As  early  as  May  21st,  1861,  two  months  before  the  first  battle  of 
Manassas,  the  Confederate  Congress  passed  an  act  providing  that — 

"All  prisoners  of  war  taken,  whether  on  land  or  at  sea,  during 
the  pending  hostilities  with  the  United  States,  shall  be  transferred 
by  the  captors  from  time  to  time,  and  as  often  as  convenient,  to 
the  Department  of  War;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary 
of  War,  with  the  approval  of  the  President,  to  issue  such  instruc 
tions  to  the  Quartermaster-General,  and  his  subordinates,  as  shall 
provide  for  the  safe  custody  and  sustenance  of  prisoners  of  war; 
and  tha-t  rations  furnished  prisoners  of  war  shall  be  the  same  in 
quantity  and  quality  as  those  furnished  to  enlisted  men  in  the 
Army  of  the  Confederacy/' 

By  an  Act  of  February,  1864,  the  Quartermaster-General  was 
relieved  of  this  duty,  and  the  Commissary-General  of  Subsistence 
was  ordered  to  provide  for  the  sustenance  of  prisoners  of  war,  and 
according  to  General  Orders  No.  159,  Adjutant  and  Inspector  Gener 
al's  Office,  it  was  provided  that  "Hospitals  for  prisoners  of  war 
are  placed  on  the  same  footing  as  other  Confederate  States3  Hos 
pitals  in  all  respects,  and  will  be  managed  accordingly" 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  113 

GENERAL  LEE'S  ORDERS. 

General  Lee,  in  his  testimony  before  the  Reconstruction  Com 
mittee  of  Congress,  says  of  the  treatment  of  prisoners  on  the 
field: 

"The  orders  always  were,  that  the  whole  field  should  be  treated 
alike.  Parties  were  sent  out  to  take  the  Federal  wounded,  as  well 
as  the  Confederate,  and  the  surgeons  were  told  to  treat  the  one  as 
they  did  the  other.  These  orders  given  ~by  me  were  respected  on 
every  field." 

And  there  is  nothing  in  all  the  records,  so  far  as  we  can  find, 
which  indicates  that  any  Department  of  the  Confederate  Govern 
ment,  or  any  representative  of  any  such  Department,  failed  to 
carry  out  these  provisions  of  the  law,  and  these  orders,  as  far  as 
they  were  able  to  do  so.  Of  course,  there  were  times  when,  by 
reason  of  insufficient  transportation,  and  insufficient  supplies  of 
food  and  clothing  of  all  kinds,  it  was  simply  impossible  to  get 
proper  supplies  and  in  sufficient  quantities  to  prevent  great  suf 
fering  among  the  prisoners  in  Southern  prisons.  But  this  was 
equally  true  as  to  the  Confederate  soldiers  in  the  field,  and  the  asser 
tion  on  page  68  of  the  before-referred-to  publication  by  the  North 
ern  Sanitary  Commission,  headed  by  Dr.  Valentine  Mott,  shows 
its  partisanry  and  worthlessness  as  history,  when  it  charges  the 
Confederate  authorities  with  "deliberately  withholding  necessary 
food  from  their  prisoners  of  war,  and  furnishing  them  with  what 
was  indigestible  and  loathsome,  when  their  own  army  was  abun 
dantly  supplied  with  good  and  wholesome  food;"  *  *  *  "of 
depriving  their  prisoners  of  their  own  clothing,  and  also  of  with 
holding  the  issue  of  sufficient  to  keep  them  warm  when  the  sol 
diers  of  their  own  army  were  well  equipped  and  well  protected  from 
exposure  to  wet  and  cold."  The  world  now  knows,  that  at  the 
very  time  when  these  false  charges  were  being  formulated,  the 
Confederate  soldiers  in  the  field  were  almost  naked  and  starving, 
and  that  nearly  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  rest  of  their  equipment 
had  been  captured  from  their  enemy  in  battle. 
7 


114  Official  Reports  of  the 

EXCHANGE  OF  PRISONERS. 

From  the  very  beginning,  the  Confederate  authorities  were 
anxious  to  make  an  arrangement  for  the  exchange  of  prisoners, 
and,  indeed,  that  the  war  should  be  conducted  in  all  of  its  features 
on  the  highest  and  most  humane  plane  known  to  civilized  nations. 
To  that  end  Mr.  Davis  wrote  Mr.  Lincoln  on  July  6th,  1861,  as 
follows : 

"It  is  the  desire  of  this  Government  so  to  conduct  the  war  now 
existing,  as  to  mitigate  its  horrors  as  far  as  may  be  possible;  and 
with  this  intent,  its  treatment  of  the  prisoners  captured  by  its 
forces  has  been  marked  by  the  greatest  humanity  and  leniency 
consistent  with  public  obligation.  Some  have  been  permitted  to 
return  home  on  parole,  others  to  remain  at  large  under  similar 
conditions,  within  this  Confederacy,  and  all  have  been  furnished 
with  rations  for  their  subsistence,  such  as  are  allowed  to  our  own 
troops." 

This  letter  was  sent  to  Washington  by  a  special  messenger  (Col. 
Taylor) ;  but  he  was  refused  an  audience  with  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  was 
forced  to  content  himself  with  a  verbal  reply  from  General  Scott 
to  the  effect  that  the  letter  had  been  delivered  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  and 
that  he  would  reply  to  it  in  writing  as  soon  as  possible.  But  no 
answer  ever  came. 

For  nearly  a  year  after  the  war  began,  although  many  pris 
oners  were  captured  and  released  on  parole,  on  both  sides,  the  Fed 
eral  authorities  refused  to  enter  into  any  arrangement  for  the  ex 
change  of  prisoners,  taking  the  absurd  position  that  they  would  not 
treat  with  "rebels"  in  any  way  which  would  recognize  them  as  bel 
ligerents.  The  English  government  had  already  recognized  us 
as  "belligerents"  as  early  as  May,  1861.  As  the  Earl  of  Derby 
tersely  said  in  the  House  of  Lords : 

"The  Northern  States  could  not  claim  the  rights  of  belligerents 
for  themselves,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  deal  with  other  parties, 
not  as  belligerents,  but  as  rebels." 

After  a  while  the  pressure  on  the  Federal  authorities  by  friends 
of  the  prisoners  was  so  great  that  they  were  induced  to  agree  to 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  115 

a  cartel  for  the  exchange  of  prisoners  on  the  very  basis  offered  by 
the  Confederates  in  the  beginning.  These  negotiations  were  com 
menced  on  the  14th  of  February,  1862,  Gen.  John  E.  Wool  repre 
senting  the  Federals  and  Gen.  Howell  Cobb  the  Confederates,  the 
only  unsettled  point  at  that  time  being  that  General  Wool  was 
unwilling  that  each  party  should  agree  to  pay  the  expenses  of 
transporting  their  prisoners  to  the  frontier;  and  this  question  he 
promised  to  refer  to  his  Government.  At  a  second  interview  on 
March  1st,  1862,  General  Wool  informed  General  Cobb  that  his 
Government  would  not  consent  to  pay  these  expenses,  and  there 
upon  General  Cobb  promptly  receded  from  this  demand  and  agreed 
to  accept  the  terms  offered  by  General  Wool.  General  Wool  had 
stated  in  the  beginning  that  he  alone  was  clothed  with  full  power 
to  effect  this  arrangement,  but  he  now  stated  that  his  Government 
"had  changed  his  instructions."  And  so  these  negotiations  were 
broken  off,  and  matters  left  as  before  they  were  begun. 

The  real  reason  for  this  change  was  that  in  the  meantime  the 
capture  of  Forts  Henry  and  Donaldson  had  given  the  Federals  a 
preponderance  in  the  number  of  prisoners.  Soon,  however,  Jack 
son's  Valley  campaign,  the  battles  around  Eichmond,  and  other 
Confederate  successes,  gave  the  Confederates  the  preponderance, 
and  this  change  of  conditions  induced  the  Federals  to  consent  to 
terms,  to  which  the  Confederates  had  always  been  ready  to  accede. 

And  so  on  July  22nd,  1862,  Gen.  John  A.  Dix,  representing 
the  Federals,  and  Gen.  D.  H.  Hill,  the  Confederates,  at  HaxalPs 
Landing,  on  James  river,  in  Charles  City  county,  entered  into  the 
cartel  which  thereafter  formed  the  basis  for  the  exchange  of  pris 
oners  during  the  rest  of  the  war  whenever  it  was  allowed  by  the 
Federals  to  be  in  operation.  Article  four  of  this  cartel  provided 
as  follows : 

"All  prisoners  of  war,  to  be  discharged  on  parole,  in  ten  days 
after  their  capture,  and  the  prisoners  now  held  and  those  hereafter 
taken,  to  be  transferred  to  the  points  mutually  agreed  upon,  at 
the  expense  of  the  capturing  party ." 

Article  six  provided  that — 

"The  stipulations   and  provisions   above  mentioned  are  to  be 


116  Official  Reports  of  the 

of  binding  obligation  during  the  continuance  of  the  war,  it  mat 
ters  not  which  party  may  have  the  surplus  of  prisoners."  *  *  * 
"  That  all  prisoners,  of  whatever  arm  of  the  service,  are  to  be  ex 
changed  or  paroled  in  ten  days  from  the  time  of  their  capture, 
if  it  be  practicable  to  transfer  them  to  their  own  lines,  in  that 
time;  if  not,  as  soon  thereafter  as  practicable." 

Article  nine  provided  that — 

"In  case  any  misunderstanding  shall  arise  in  regard  to  any 
clause  or  stipulation  in  the  foregoing  articles,  it  is  mutually  agreed 
that  such  misunderstanding  shall  not  interrupt  the  release  of  pris 
oners  on  parole,  as  herein  provided;  but  shall  be  made  the  sub 
ject  of  friendly  explanation,  in  order  that  the  object  of  this  agree 
ment  may  neither  be  defeated  nor  postponed." 

It  is  readily  seen  that  both  General  Dix  and  General  Hill  acted 
with  the  utmost  good  faith  in  the  formation  of  this  cartel,  with 
a  common  purpose  in  view,  to  the  carrying  out  of  which  each 
pledged  the  good  faith  of  his  Government;  and  in  Article  nine 
they  made  ample  provision  to  prevent  any  cessation  in  the  work 
of  exchanging  promptly  all  prisoners  captured  during  the  war. 
And  we  now  propose  to  show  that  this  would  have  been  the  case 
but  for  the  bad  faith  and  bad  conduct  of  the  representatives  of  the 
Federal  Government. 

As  was  contemplated  by  the  cartel,  each  of  the  two  Governments 
appointed  its  Commissioners  of  Exchange  to  carry  it  into  execu 
tion.  On  the  part  of  the  Federals,  Major  General  E.  A.  Hitch 
cock  was  appointed,  with  two  assistants.  Col.  Wm.  H.  Ludlow, 
and  Captain  (afterward  Brigadier-General)  John  E.  Mulford,  as 
assistants.  On  the  part  of  the  Confederates,  the  late  Judge  Eob- 
ert  Ould,  of  the  Eichmond  (Va.)  Bar,  was  the  sole  representative. 
The  writer  had  the  privilege  of  knowing  both  General  Mulford  and 
Judge  Ould  well,  and,  in  his  opinion,  no  better  selections  could 
have  been  made  by  their  respective  Governments.  Judge  Ould 
was  a  man  of  splendid  judicial  bearing,  singular  honesty  of  pur 
pose  and  kindness  of  heart,  with  capacity  both  in  speaking  and 
in  writing,  to  represent  his  Government  with  unsurpassed  ability. 
General  Mulford  was  a  man  of  fair  abilities,  and  of  great  kind- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  117 

ness  of  heart.  Of  General  Hitchcock  and  Colonel  Ludlow,  he  can 
only  speak  from  what  they  disclose  of  their  characteristics  in  their 
letters.  General  Hitchcock  exhibits  profound  distrust  of  what 
he  terms  the  "rebel"  authorities  in  all  of  his  letters,  and  fre 
quently  displays  a  temper  and  impatience,  seemingly,  not  war 
ranted  by  the  surrounding  circumstances.  Colonel  Ludlow,  at 
times,  exhibits  great  fairness;  at  other  times,  manifest  unfair 
ness,  but  always  displays  shrewdness  and  ability. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  in  these  records  to  show  that  the 
true  reason  why  Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  reply  to  Mr.  Davis's  letter 
of  July  6th,  1861,  hereinbefore  quoted,  was  that  he  and  the  other 
authorities  at  Washington  did  not  intend  from  the  beginning  to 
conduct  the  war,  in  any  of  its  features,  according  to  the  recog 
nized  principles  of  civilized  warfare,  although  they  had  adopted 
the  rules  of  Dr.  Leiber  apparently  for  this  purpose,  as  the  law  to 
govern  the  conduct  of  their  armies  in  the  field.  As  conclusive 
evidence  of  this,  it  was  shown  in  our  last  report  that  on  the  very 
day  of  the  date  of  the  cartel,  the  Federal  Secretary  of  War,  by 
order  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  issued  an  order  to  the  Military  Command 
ers  in  Virginia,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  Mis 
sissippi,  Louisiana,  Texas  and  Arkansas,  directing  them  to  seize 
and  use  any  property  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  Confederacy 
which  might  be  "necessary  or  convenient  for  their  several  com 
mands,"  without  making  any  provision  for  compensation  therefor. 
About  the  same  time,  and  doubtless  by  the  same  authority,  Gen 
erals  Pope  and  Steinwehr  issued  their  infamous  orders,  also  re 
ferred  to  in  our  last  report.  All  of  these  orders  were  so  contrary 
to  all  the  rules  of  civilized  warfare,  and  especially  to  those  adopted 
by  the  Federal  authorities  themselves,  that  on  August  1,  1862  (just 
ten  days  from  the  date  of  the  cartel),  the  Confederate  authorities 
were  driven  to  the  necessity  of  issuing  an  order  declaring,  among 
other  things,  that  Pope  and  Steinwehr  and  the  commissioned  offi 
cers  of  their  commands,  "had  chosen  for  themselves  (to  use  Gen 
eral  Lee's  words)  the  position  of  robbers  and  murderers,  and  not 
that  of  public  enemies,  entitled,  if  captured,  to  be  treated  as  pris 
oners  of  war."  Later  on,  in  the  fall  of  that  year,  came  the  bar- 


118  Official  Reports  of  the 

barons  orders  and  conduct  of  Generals  Milroy,  Butler  and  Hunter, 
which  led  to  the  proclamations  of  outlawry  against  these  officers, 
and  directing  that  they  and  their  commissioned  officers  should  not 
be  treated,  if  captured,  as  prisoners  of  war,  and,  therefore  should 
not  be  exchanged,  but  kept  in  confinement. 

In  September,  1862,  Mr.  Lincoln's  emancipation  proclamation 
was  issued,  to  take  effect  January  1st  following,  which  caused  Mr. 
Davis  to  issue  another  proclamation  on  December  23rd,  1862,  di 
recting  that  any  Federal  officer  who  should  be  arrested  whilst  either 
enrolling,  or  in  command  of  negroes,  who  were  slaves,  should  be 
turned  over  to  the  authorities  of  the  several  States  in  which  the  of 
fenses  were  committed,  and  punished  for  the  crime  of  inciting  ser 
vile  insurrection.  These  several  proclamations  of  Mr.  Davis  created 
considerable  uneasiness  among  the  Federal  authorities,  and  fur 
nished  the  very  pretext  for  which  they  were  doubtless  longing,  for 
either  violating,  or  suspending,  the  terms  of  the  cartel.  And  so  on 
January  16th,  1863,  we  find  Colonel  Ludlow  writing  to  his  supe 
rior,  General  Hitchcock,  as  follows : 

"I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  to  you  a  copy  of  the  Eichmond 
Enquirer,  containing  Jeff.  Davis'  message.  His  determination, 
avowed  in  most  insolent  terms,  to  deliver  to  the  several  State  au 
thorities  all  commissioned  officers  of  the  United  States  that  may 
hereafter  be  captured,  will,  I  think,  be  persevered  in.  You  will 
remember  that  after  the  proclamation  of  Jeff.  Davis,  of  Dec.  23rd, 
1862,  I  urgently  advised  another  interview  (the  last  one  I  had 
with  Mr.  Ould,  and  in  which  very  important  exchanges  were  de 
clared).  I  then  did  so  anticipating  that  the  cartel  might  be 
broken,  and  wishing  to  make  sure  of  the  discharge  from  their  pa 
role  of  10,000  of  our  men.  This  was  effected,  and  in  a  manner 
so  advantageous  to  our  Government  that  we  gained  in  the  count 
of  20,000  exchanged,  about  7,000  men.  I  had  almost  equally 
good  success  in  the  exchange  declared  on  November  llth,  1862.  If 
an  open  rupture  should  now  occur,  in  the  execution  of  the  cartel, 
we  are  well  prepared  for  it.  I  am  endeavoring  to  get  away  from 
the  Confederate  prisons  all  our  officers  captured  previously  to  the 
date  of  the  message  of  Jeff.  Davis  (the  12th  instant),  with  what 
success  I  shall  know  early  next  week." 

(See  Series  II.,  Vol.  V.,  Eeb.,  Eec.  Serial  118,  p.  181.) 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  119 

This  transaction,  of  which,  we  find  Col.  Ludlow  thus  boasting 
to  his  superior,  will  surely  be  sufficient  to  establish  his  reputation 
for  shrewdness  as  a  trader,  or  exchanger.  So  flagrant  had  been 
the  violations  of  the  cartel  and  the  abuses  committed  by  the  Fed 
erals  in  pretending  to  carry  it  out,  (some  of  which  are  confessed, 
as  we  have  just  seen,  by  Col.  Ludlow),  that  on  January  17th,  1863 
Judge  Ould  wrote  Col.  Ludlow,  complaining  in  the  strongest 
terms,  and  stating  that  if  he  (Col.  Ludlow)  had  any  Confederate 
officer  in  his  possession,  or  on  parole,  he  would  be  exchanged  for 
his  equivalent.  But  that  beyond  that,  he  would  not,  and  could 
not,  parole  commissioned  officers  then  in  his  possession,  but  would 
continue  to  parole  non-commissioned  officers  and  privates.  He 
said: 

"This  course  has  been  forced  on  the  Confederate  Government, 
not  only  by  the  refusal  of  the  authorities  of  the  United  States  to 
respond  to  the  repeated  applications  of  this  Government  in  rela 
tion  to  the  execution  of  Mumford,  but  by  their  persistence  in  re 
taining  Confederate  officers  who  were  entitled  to  parole  and  ex 
change." 

He  said  further: 

"You  have  now,  of  captures  that  are  by  no  means  recent,  many 
officers  of  the  Confederate  service,  who  are  retained  in  your  mili 
tary  prisons  East  and  West.  Applications  have  been  made  for 
the  release  of  same  without  success,  and  others  have  been  kept  in 
confinement  so  long  as  to  justify  the  conclusion  that  you  refuse 
both  to  parole  and  exchange."  Id.,  pp.  186-7. 

Judge  Ould  then  called  Col.  Ludlow's  attention  to  several  in 
stances  of  these  abuses  and  mistakes,  and  asked  that  they  be  cor 
rected.  In  his  letter  of  January  25th,  1863,  he  says: 

"If  any  injustice  has  been  done  to  you  by  our  agreement,  about 
reducing  officers  to  privates,  or  in  any  other  subject  matter,  I 
will  promptly  redress  it."  *  *  *  "There  must  be  many  offi 
cers  in  your  and  our  possession  who,  by  our  agreement,  made  at 
the  last  interview,  were  declared  exchanged.  Such  certainly  ought 
to  be  mutually  delivered  up.  The  excess  is  on  our  side,  but  I 
will  stand  it  because  I  have  agreed  to  it.  I  must,  however,  insist 


120  Official  Reports  of  the 

upon  the  immediate  delivery  of  such  of  our  officers  as  are  included 
in  the  agreement."  P.  213. 

On  December  30th,  1862',  the  following  order  was  issued  by 
Gen.  H.  W.  Halleck,  signing  himself  as  "Gen'l.-in-Chief" : 

"No  officers,  prisoners  of  war,  will  be  released  on  parole  till 
further  orders/'  Id.,  p.  248. 

This,  he  said,  was  done  in  consequence  of  the  course  then  being 
pursued  by  the  Confederate  authorities.  But  notwithstanding  this 
order,  and  this  action  of  the  Confederate  authorities  here  com 
plained  of,  exchanges  seem  to  have  gone  on,  the  Commissioners  on 
either  side  constantly  complaining  that  his  adversary  had  broken 
the  cartel.  And  on  April  llth,  1863,  we  find  Judge  Quid  again 
writing  Colonel  Ludlow,  saying: 

"I  am  very  much  surprised  at  your  refusal  to  deliver  officers 
for  those  of  your  own,  who  have  been  captured,  paroled  and  re 
leased  by  us  since  the  date  of  the  proclamation  and  message  of 
President  Davis.  The  refusal  is  not  only  a  flagrant  breach  of  the 
cartel,  but  can  be  supported  on  no  rule  of  reciprocity  or  equity/' 
*  *  *  "You  have  charged  us  with  breaking  the  cartel.  With 
what  sort  of  justice  can  that  allegation  be  supported,  when  you  de 
livered  only  a  few  days  ago  over  ninety  officers,  most  of  whom 
had  been  forced  to  languish  and  suffer  in  prison  for  months  be 
fore  we  were  compelled,  by  that  and  other  reasons,  to  issue  the 
retaliatory  order  of  which  you  complain?  Those  ninety-odd  are 
not  half  of  those  whom  you  unjustly  held  in  prison.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  defy  you  to  name  the  case  of  one  who  is  confined  by  us, 
whom  our  Government  has  declared  exchanged.  Is  it  your  idea 
that  we  are  to  be  bound  by  every  strictness  of  the  cartel,  while  you 
are  at  liberty  to  violate  it  for  months,  and  that,  too,  not  only  in  a 
few  cases,  but  hundreds?"  *  *  *  "If  captivity,  privation  and 
misery  are  to  be  the  fate  of  officers  on  both  sides  hereafter,  let  God 
judge  between  us.  I  have  struggled  in  this  matter  as  if  it  had  been 
a  matter  of  life  and  death  to  me.  I  am  heart-sick  at  the  termina 
tion,  but  I  have  no  self-reproaches/'  Id.,  p.  469. 

In  Ludlow's  reply  to  this  letter,  he  simply  says  Judge  Ould 
was  mistaken  in  his  charges  and  complaints,  but  he  did  not  sue- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  121 

ceed  in  pointing  out  one  single  instance  in  which  Judge  Quid 
was  in  error. 

Notwithstanding  all  these  charges  and  counter  charges,  ex 
changes  still  went  on,  and  so  we  find  Colonel  Ludlow  reporting  to 
Secretary  Stanton  on  May  5th,  1863,  as  follows: 

"I  have  just  returned  from  City  Point,  and  have  brought  with 
me  all  my  officers  who  have  been  held  by  the  Confederates,  and 
whom  I  send  to  City  Point  to-night.  I  have  made  the  following 
declarations  of  exchanges : 

(1)  "All  officers  and  enlisted  men,  and  all  persons,  whatever 
may  have  been  their  classification  or   character,  who  have  been 
delivered  at  City  Point  up  to  the  6th  of  May,  1863. 

(2)  "All  officers  who  have  been  captured  and  released  on  parole 
up  to  April   1st,  1863,  wherever  they  may  have  been  captured. 
*    *    *     Id.,  p.  559,     See  also,  p.  564. 

It  seems  that  the  Confederate  Congress  had  refused  to  sustain 
Mr.  Davis,  in  his  suggested  retaliatory  measures  about  the  treat 
ment  of  officers  to  the  extent  he  had  recommended,  and  so  ex 
changes  went  on  with  the  result  as  just  above  reported,  up  to  May 
6th,  1863,  and  with  but  few,  if  any,  complaints  against  the  Con 
federates  of  ill  treatment  to  prisoners  to  that  time.  But  how 
does  the  case  stand,  in  this  respect,  at  this  time,  with  the  Fed 
erals?  We  have  only  space  here  for  two  quotations  to  show  this, 
and  both  of  these  are  from  their  own  witnesses,  and  it  would  seem 
that  these  would  offset  "Andersonville,"  "The  Libby,"  or  any  other 
place  this  side  of  the  infernal  regions. 

On  February  9th,  1862,  Judge  Quid  wrote  Col.  Ludlow: 

"I  see  from  your  own  papers,  that  some  dozen  of  our  men  cap 
tured  at  Arkansas  Pass  were  allowed  to  freeze  to  death  in  one 
night  at  Camp  Douglas.  I  appeal  to  our  common  instincts,  against 
such  atrocious  inhumanity."  Id.,  p.  25,7. 

We  find  no  denial  of  this  charge.  On  May  10th,  1863,  Dr. 
Wm.  H.  Van  Buren,  of  New  York,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States 
"Sanitary  Commission,"  reported  to  the  Secretary  of  War  the 
condition  of  the  hospitals  of  the  prisoners  at  Camp  Douglas,  near 
Chicago,  and  Gratiot  street,  St.  Louis.  In  this  report  he  incor- 


122  Official  Reports  of  the 

porates  the  statements  of  Drs.  Hun  and  Cogswell,  of  Albany,  N. 
Y.,  who  had  been  employed  by  the  Sanitary  Commission  to  in 
spect  hospitals,  and  Dr.  Van  Buren  commends  these  gentlemen 
as  men  of  high  character  and  eminent  fitness  for  the  work  to 
which  they  had  been  assigned.  It  is  from  the  statement  of  these 
Northern  gentlemen  that  we  quote.  They  caption  their  report 
from  Albany,  April  5th,  1863,  and  say,  among  other  things,  as 
follows : 

"In  our  experience,  we  have  never  witnessed  so  painful  a  spec 
tacle  as  that  presented  by  these  wretched  inmates;  without  change 
of  clothing,  covered  with  vermin,  they  lie  in  cots,  without  mat 
tresses,  or  with  mattresses  furnished  by  private  charity,  without 
sheets  or  bedding  of  any  kind,  except  blankets,  often  in  rags;  in 
wards  reeking  with  filth  and  foul  air.  The  stench  is  most  offen 
sive.  We  carefully  avoid  all  exaggeration  of  statement,  but  we 
give  some  facts  which  speak  for  themselves.  From  January  27th, 
1863,  when  the  prisoners  (in  number  about  3,800)  arrived  at 
Camp  Douglas,  to  February  18th,  the  day  of  our  visit,  385  patients 
have  been  admitted  to  the  hospitals,  of  whom  130  have  died.  This 
mortality  of  33  per  cent,  does  not  express  the  whole  truth,  for  of 
the  148  patients  then  remaining  in  the  hospital  a  large  number 
must  have  since  died.  Besides  this,  130  prisoners  have  died  in 
barracks,  not  having  been  able  to  gain  admission  even  to  the  mis 
erable  accommodations  of  the  hospital,  and  at  the  time  of  our 
visit  150  persons  were  sick  in  barracks  waiting  for  room  in  hos 
pital.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  260  out  of  the  3,800  prisoners 
had  died  in  twenty-one  days,  a  rate  of  mortality  which,  if  con 
tinued,  would  secure  their  total  extermination  in  about  320  days." 

They  then  go  on  to  describe  the  conditions  at  St.  Louis,  show 
ing  them  to  be  even  worse  than  at  Chicago,  and  after  stating  that 
the  conditions  of  these  prisons  are  "discreditable  to  a  Christian 
people,"  they  add: 

"It  surely  is  not  the  intention  of  our  Government  to  place  these 
prisoners  in  a  position  which  will  secure  their  extermination  by 
pestilence  in  less  than  a  year."  See,  also,  report  of  TJ.  S.  Sur 
geon  A.  M.  Clark,  Series  II.,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  371.  See,  also,  Id.,  p. 
113. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  123 

Is  it  not  a  little  surprising,  that  when  the  representatives  of 
this  same  "Sanitary  Commission"  published  their  savage  and  par 
tisan  report  in  September,  1864,  as  to  the  way  their  prisoners 
were  being  treated  in  Southern  prisons,  which  report  they  had 
adorned  with  pictures  of  skeletons  alleged  to  have  come  from  our 
prison  hospitals,  they  did  not  make  some  allusion  to  the  condi 
tion  of  things  as  found  by  them  in  their  own  hospitals? 

But  as  further  evidence  of  violations  of  the  cartel,  it  will  be 
seen  that  on  May  13th,  1863,  Judge  Quid  wrote  to  Col.  Ludlow 
again  calling  his  attention  to  the  "large  number  of  our  officers 
captured  long  since  and  still  held  by  them";  threatened  retaliation 
if  the  unjust  and  harsh  course  then  pursued  by  the  Federals  to 
wards  our  officers  was  persevered  in;  and  concluded  as  follows: 

"Nothing  is  now  left  as  to  those  whom  our  protests  have  failed 
to  release,  but  to  resort  to  retaliation.  The  Confederate  Govern 
ment  is  anxious  to  avoid  a  resort  to  that  harsh  measure.  In  its 
name  I  make  a  final  appeal  for  that  justice  to  our  imprisoned  offi 
cers  and  men  which  your  own  agreements  have  declared  to  be  their 
due."  Id.,  p.  607. 

Again,  on  the  next  day,  he  wrote,  naming  several  of  Mosby's 
men  who  had  been  carried  to  the  Old  Capitol  prison.  He  then 
said: 

"They  are  retained  under  the  allegation  that  they  are  bush 
whackers  and  guerrillas.  Mosby's  command  is  in  the  Confederate 
service  in  every  sense  of  the  term.  He  is  regularly  commissioned, 
and  his  force  is  as  strictly  Confederate  as  any  in  our  army.  Why 
is  this  done?  This  day  I  have  cleaned  every  prison  in  my  con 
trol  as  far  as  I  know.  If  there  is  any  detention  an}rwhere  let 
me  know  and  I  will  rectify  it.  I  am  compelled  to  complain  of 
this  thing  in  almost  every  communication.  You  will  not  deem 
me  passionate  when  I  assure  you  it  will  not  be  endured  any 
longer.  If  these  men  are  not  delivered,  a  stern  retaliation  will 
be  made  immediately."  Id.,  p.  632. 

Again  on  the  22nd  of  May,  1863,  he  wrote,  saying: 

f<You  are  well  aware,  that  for  the  last  six  months  I  have  been 
presenting  to  you  lists  of  Confederate  officers  and  soldiers  and 


124:  Official  Reports  of  the 

Confederate  citizens,  who  have  been  detained  by  your  authorities 
in  their  prisons.  Some  of  these,  on  my  remonstrance,  have  been 
released  and  sent  to  us,  but  by  far  the  greater  number  remain  in 
captivity." 

He  then  tells  Colonel  Ludlow,  that  he  is  satisfied  that  he  (Lud 
low)  has  tried  to  have  these  prisoners  released,  but  without  avail, 
and  then  tells  him  again  that  the  Confederates  were  compelled  to 
notify  him  that  they  must  resort  to  retaliation;  but  telling  him 
further  that  he  will  be  notified  of  each  case  in  which  this  course 
is  pursued. 

On  the  same  day  he  wrote  another  letter  calling  Ludlow's  atten 
tion  to  the  report  that  Captains  McGraw  and  Corbin  had  been 
tried  and  sentenced  to  be  shot  for  recruiting  for  the  Confederates 
in  Kentucky,  and  saying  that  if  these  men  were  executed  the  Con 
federate  authorities  had  selected  two  captains  for  execution  in 
retaliation;  and  he  concludes  this  letter  with  this  significant  lan.- 
guage: 

"In  view  of  the  awful  vortex  into  which  things  are  plunging,  I 
give  you  notice,  that  in  the  event  of  the  execution  of  these  per 
sons,  retaliation  to  an  equal  extent  at  least,  will  be  visited  upon 
your  own  officers,  and  if  that  is  found  ineffectual  the  number  will 
be  increased.  The  Great  Euler  of  Nations  must  judge  who  is  re 
sponsible  for  the  initiation  of  this  chapter  of  horrors.  Id.,  p. 
690-1. 

In  a  letter  of  January  5th,  1863,  Judge  Ould  wrote: 

"Nothing  is  nearer  my  heart  than  to  prevent  on  either  side  a 
resort  to  retaliation.  Even  if  made  necessary  by  course  of  events, 
it  is  much  to  be  deplored.  These  are  not  only  my  own  personal 
views,  lut  those  of  my  Government." 

It  is  almost  unnecessary  to  say  that,  of  course,  these  complaints 
and  threats  and  appeals,  would  not  have  been  made,  at  the  time, 
and  in  the  manner  they  were  made,  had  not  just  cause  existed 
therefor,  and  that  the  Federal  authorities  were  solely  responsible 
for  the  condition  of  affairs  then  existing.  (See  another  letter  of 
the  same  date  on  the  same  page  as  to  political  prisoners.) 

This  being  the  condition  of  things,  on  May  25th,  1863,  the  fol 
lowing  order  was  issued  by  the  Federals : 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  125 

"WAR  DEPARTMENT,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  May  25,  1863. 
GENERAL  SCHOFIELD: 

"No  Confederate  officer  will  be  paroled  or  exchanged  till  fur 
ther  orders.  They  will  be  kept  in  close  confinement,  and  be 
strongly  guarded.  Those  already  paroled  will  be  confined. 

"  H.  W.  HALLECK, 

ff  General-in-Chief/' 

And  similar  orders  were  sent  to  all  commanders  of  Federal 
forces  throughout  the  country.  Id.,  p.  696.  See,  also,  pp.  706-7, 
722. 

It  is  surely  unnecessary  then,  after  reading  these  letters,  and 
this  order,  to  say  which  side  was  responsible  for  violations  of  the 
cartel  while  it  remained  in  operation,  and  for  the  suspension  of 
its  Qperations,  as  well  as  for  the  first  maltreatment  of  prisoners. 

With  the  exception  of  exchanges  in  individual  cases,  this  sus 
pension  of  the  cartel  continued.  So  that,  on  July  2nd,  1863,  Mr. 
Davis  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Lincoln  in  which  he  said,  among 
other  things,  after  referring  to  the  differences  that  had  arisen  be 
tween  the  Commissioners  in  carrying  out  the  cartel,  and  the  hard 
ships  incurred  by  reason  of  its  suspension — as  follows : 

"I  believe  I  have  just  ground  of  complaint  against  the  officers 
and  forces  under  your  command,  for  breach  of  the  cartel, 
and  being  myself  ready  to  execute  it  at  all  times,  and  in  good  faith, 
I  am  not  justified  in  doubting  the  existence  of  the  same  disposi 
tion  on  your  part.  In  addition  to  this  matter,  I  have  to  complain 
of  the  conduct  of  your  officers  and  troops  in  many  parts  of  the 
country,  who  violate  all  the  rules  of  war  by  carrying  on  hostilities, 
not  only  against  armed  foes,  but  against  non-combatants,  aged  men, 
women  and  children,  while  others  not  only  seize  such  property  as 
is  required  for  the  use  of  your  troops,  but  destroy  all  private  prop 
erty  within  their  reach,  even  agricultural  implements,  and  openly 
avow  the  purpose  of  seeking  to  subdue  the  population  of  the  dis 
tricts  where  they  are  operating  by  starvation  that  must  result  from 


126  Official  Reports  of  the 

the  destruction  of  standing  crops  and  agricultural  tools.  Still 
again  others  of  your  officers  in  different  districts  have  recently 
taken  the  lives  of  prisoners  who  fell  into  their  power,  and  justify 
their  act  by  asserting  a  right  to  treat  as  spies  the  military  officers 
and  enlisted  men  under  my  command  who  may  penetrate  into 
States  recognized  by  us  as  our  allies  in  the  warfare  now  waged 
against  the  United  States,  but  claimed  by  the  latter  as  having  re- 
fused  to  engage  in  such  warfare.  I  have  therefore  on  different 
occasions  been  forced  to  make  complaints  of  these  outrages,  and 
to  ask  from  you,  that  you  either  avow  or  disclaim  having  author 
ized  them,  and  have  failed  to  obtain  such  answer  as  the  usages  of 
civilized  warfare  require  to  be  given  in  such  cases.  These  usages 
justify  and  indeed  require  redress  by  retaliation  as  the  proper 
means  of  repressing  such  cruelties  as  are  not  permitted  in  warfare 
between  Christian  peoples.  I  have,  notwithstanding,  refrained  from 
the  exercise  of  such  retaliation  because  of  its  obvious  tendency  to 
lead  to  war  of  indiscriminate  massacre  on  both  sides,  which  would 
be  a  spectacle  so  shocking  to  humanity,  and  so  disgraceful  to  the 
age  in  which  we  live,  and  the  religion  we  profess,  that  I  cannot 
contemplate  it  without  a  feeling  of  horror  that  I  am  disinclined 
to  doubt  you  would  share.  With  the  view  then  of  making  our 
last  solemn  attempt  to  avert  such  calamities,  and  to  attest  my 
earnest  desire  to  prevent  them,  if  possible,  I  have  selected  the 
bearer  of  this  letter,  the  Hon.  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  as  a  Mili 
tary  Commissioner,  to  proceed  to  your  headquarters,  under  flag 
of  truce,  there  to  confer  and  agree  on  the  subjects  above  men 
tioned;  and  I  do  hereby  authorize  the  said  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
to  arrange  and  settle  all  differences  and  disputes,  which  have 
arisen,  or  may  arise  in  the  execution  of  the  cartel  for  exchange 
of  prisoners  of  war,  heretofore  agreed  on  between  our  respective 
land  and  naval  forces;  also  to  prevent  further  misunderstandings 
as  to  the  terms  of  said  cartel,  and  finally  to  enter  into  such  ar 
rangement  and  understanding  about  the  mode  of  carrying  on  hos 
tilities  between  the  belligerents  as  shall  confine  the  severities  of 
the  war  within  such  limits  as  are  rightfully  imposed,  not  only  by 
modern  civilization,  but  by  our  common  Christianity."  Eeb.  Rec., 
Series  II.,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  75-6. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  127 

On  the  4th  of  July,  1863,  Mr.  Stephens,  accompanied  by  Judge 
Ould,  took  the  foregoing  letter  and  proceeded  down  the  James  river 
under  flag  of  truce,  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  the  letter,  and 
of  conferring  with  Mr.  Lincoln.  They  were  stopped  by  the  block 
ading  squadron,  under  the  command  of  Acting  Rear- Admiral  S.  P. 
Lee,  near  Newport  News,  and  Mr.  Stephens  then  communicated 
to  Admiral  Lee  the  nature  of  his  mission.  This  communication 
to  Admiral  Lee  was  reported  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Mr. 
Gideon  Wells,  and  by  the  latter  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  Mr. 
Edwin  M.  Stanton.  After  Mr.  Stephens  had  been  kept  for  two 
days  awaiting  a  reply,  he  was  informed  that  the  Secretary  of  War 
refused  to  permit  him  to  proceed  further  on  the  ground  that  "  the 
customary  agents  and  channels  are  considered  adequate  for  all 
needful  communications  and  conferences."  See  Mr.  Stephens' 
report,  Id.,  p.  94. 

Between  the  date  of  Mr.  Davis'  letter  and  the  6th  of  July,  when 
the  refusal  came  to  allow  Mr.  Stephens  to  proceed  further  on  his 
attempted  mission  of  mercy  and  justice,  Gettysburg  had  been 
fought,  and  Vicksburg  had  fallen,  and  these  disasters  to  the  Con 
federates  had  not  only  made  the  Federals  arrogant,  but  had  also 
given  them  for  the  first  time  since  the  cartel  a  preponderance  of 
prisoners,  and  hence  from  that  time  forward,  their  interest  and 
their  policy  was  to  throw  every  obstacle  possible  in  the  way  of  the 
further  exchanges  of  prisoners. 

The  foregoing  letter  of  Mr.  Davis  exhibits  the  loftiest  states 
manship  and  Christian  character,  and  should  inspire  us  with  a 
new  desire  to  do  honor  to  his  memory,  as  well  as  fill  us  with  pride 
that  we  had  as  our  civil  leader,  one  so  noble,  so  humane,  so  just  and 
so  true. 

It  is  interesting  to  us  to  know  that  Mr.  Davis  and  General  Lee 
were  in  full  accord  in  their  views  on  the  question  of  retaliating  on 
prisoners  for  offences  committed  by  others.  On  the  13th  of  July, 
1864,  Mr.  Seddon,  the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War,  wrote  to 
General  Lee,  calling  his  attention  to  the  murder  of  two  citizens 
in  the  Valley  of  Virginia  by  General  Hunter's  orders,  or  by  his 
command,  suggesting  that  some  course  of  retaliation  should 


128  Official  Reports  of  the 

be  put  in  operation  to  prevent  further  atrocities  of  the  kind,  and 
asking  General  Lee  "What  measure  of  punishment  or  retaliation 
should  be  adopted?"  (Id.,  p.  464.)  To  this  inquiry  G-eneral 
Lee  replied  as  follows: 

"I  have  on  several  occasions  expressed  to  the  Department  my 
views  as  to  the  system  of  retaliation,  and  revolting  as  are  the  cir 
cumstances  attending  the  murder  of  the  citizens  above  mentioned, 
I  can  see  nothing  to  distinguish  them  from  other  outrages  of  a 
like  character  that  have  from  time  to  time  been  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  Government.  As  I  have  said  before,  if  the  guilty 
parties  could  be  taken,  either  the  officer  who  commands,  or  the 
soldier  who  executes  such  atrocities,  I  should  not  hesitate  to  advise 
the  infliction  of  the  extreme  punishment  they  deserve,  but  I  cannot 
think  it  right  or  politic,  to  make  the  innocent,  after  they  have  sur 
rendered  as  prisoners  of  war,  suffer  for  the  guilty."  *  *  * 

On  this  letter,  Mr.  Davis  makes  this  endorsement : 

"The  views  of  General  Lee  I  regard  as  just  and  appropriate." 

Contrast  this  letter  and  this  endorsement  with  the  treatment 
accorded  by  General  Sherman  to  prisoners,  as  detailed  by  him  on 
page  194,  Vol.  II,  of  his  Memoirs,  and  you  will  see  the  difference 
between  the  conduct  of  a  Christian  and  a  savage. 

But  we  must  proceed  with  the  subject  of  the  exchange  of  pris 
oners.  Some  time  in  the  summer  of  1863,  Gen.  S.  A.  Meredith 
was  appointed  a  Federal  Commissioner  of  Exchange,  and  in  Sep 
tember  Judge  Ould  attempted  to  open  negotiations  with  him,  for 
a  resumption  of  the  cartel.  To  this  attempt  by  letter  no  reply 
was  received.  He  renewed  these  efforts  on  October  20th,  1863, 
saying — 

"I  now  propose  that  all  officers  and  men  on  both  sides  be  re 
leased  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  cartel,  the  excess 
on  one  side  or  the  other,  to  be  on  parole.  Will  you  accept  this? 
I  have  no  expectation  of  an  answer,  but  perhaps  you  may  give 
one.  If  it  does  come,  I  hope  it  will  be  soon."  Id.,  p.  401. 

But  nothing  was  accomplished  by  both  of  these  efforts.  Some 
time  in  November  or  December,  1863,  Gen.  B.  F.  Butler  was  ap 
pointed  the  Federal  Commissioner  of  Exchange.  It  will  be  re- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  129 

membered  that  this  man  had  been  outlawed  by  the  Confederate 
authorities  prior  to  this  time  and  it  was  openly  charged,  and  gen 
erally  believed,  that  this  appointment  was  made  solely  to  make 
communication  between  the  belligerents  the  more  difficult  by  em 
barrassing  the  Confederates,  and  consequently  to  throw  this  addi 
tional  obstacle  in  the  way  of  further  exchange  of  prisoners. 

Immediately  on  taking  charge,  General  Butler  says  he  saw  Mr. 
Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  and  suggested  that  the  Confederate 
prisoners  in  their  hands,  should  be  sheltered,  fed,  clad  and  other 
wise  treated  as  Federal  prisoners  were  being  treated  by  us;  and 
this  suggestion,  he  says,  Mr.  Stanton  at  once  assented  to.  (See 
Butlers  Book,  p.  585.)  In  other  words,  he  says,  in  effect,  that 
because  the  Confederates,  in  their  exhaustion  and  poverty,  could 
not  adequately  supply  the  needs  of  their  men  in  our  prisons,  there 
fore,  he  and  the  Federal  Secretary  of  War  thought  it  right  as  an 
act  of  revenge  and  retaliation,  to  withhold  these  comforts  and 
supplies  from  our  men  in  their  prisons  when  they  had  adequate 
means  of  all  kinds  to  supply  the  needs  of  these  men.  Surely 
comment  on  this  statement  is  unnecessary. 

After  Mr.  Lincoln's  emancipation  proclamation  went  into  effect, 
as  we  have  said,  on  January  1st,  1863,  the  Federals  enrolled  a 
large  number  of  slaves  in  their  armies.  This  greaJy  embarrassed, 
as  well  as  exasperated,  the  Confederates.  We  have  heretofore  stated 
the  stand  proposed  by  Mr.  Davis,  and  recommended  by  him  to  the 
Confederate  Congress,  to  turn  over  the  officers  of  these  colored 
troops  to  the  State  authorities  in  which  any  of  them  might  be  cap 
tured,  to  be  tried  in  the  courts  of  such  State  for  the  crime  of  in 
citing  servile  insurrection,  and  that  Congress  refused  to  sustain 
him  in  this  recommendation.  The  question  then  arose  as  to 
exchanging  negro  prisoners.  The  Federal  authorities  contended 
that  where  slaves  were  captured  by  them,  or  when  they  deserted 
and  came  to  them  and  enlisted  in  their  armies,  they  thereby  be 
came  free,  and  should  be  placed  on  the  same  footing  with  their 
white  soldiers,  in  respect  to  exchanges,  as  well  as  in  all  other  re 
spects.  The  Confederates,  on  the  contrary,  contended  that  what 
ever  might  be  the  effect  on  the  status  of  the  slave  by  going  to  the 
8 


130  Official  Reports  of  the 

Federals  and  enlisting  in  their  armies;  yet  should  they  be  re 
captured  by  the  Confederates,  that  restored  them  to  their  former 
status  as  slaves,  and  they  should  then  be  returned  to  their  mas 
ters,  or  put  to  work  by  the  Confederates,  and  their  masters  com 
pensated  for  their  labor.  In  those  cases  where  the  masters  did 
not  reside  in  the  Confederacy,  or  could  not  be  ascertained,  such 
Negroes  were  to  be  exchanged  as  other  prisoners. 

The  letter  from  General  Lee  to  General  Grant,  stating  the 
Confederate  position  on  this  subject,  is  a  masterpiece,  whether 
considered  from  a  legal,  historical  or  statesmanlike  point  of  view. 
See  Series  II.,  Vol.  VII.,  Serial  No.  120,  p.  1010.  General  Grant, 
in  his  reply,  seeing  that  he  could  not  answer  the  arguments  of 
General  Lee,  contents  himself  with  saying,  on  this  point: 

"I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  discussion  of  the  slavery  ques 
tion;  therefore  decline  answering  the  arguments  adduced  to  show 
the  right  to  return  to  former  owners  such  Negroes  as  are  captured 
from  our  army/'  Id.,  p.  1018. 

But  to  return  to  General  Butler.  He  says  he  soon  learned  that 
the  Confederates  were  anxious  to  exchange  the  prisoners  held  by 
them,  and  so  he  proposed  to  the  Secretary  of  War  "the  plan  of 
so  exchanging  until  we  had  exhausted  all  our  prisoners  held  by 
the  Rebels,  and  as  we  should  then  have  a  surplus  of  some  ten 
thousand  to  hold  them  as  hostages  for  our  colored  troops,  of 
which  the  Eebels  held  only  hundreds,  and  to  retaliate  on  this  sur 
plus  such  wrongs  as  the  Rebels  might  perpetrate  on  our  soldiers." 
(See  Butler's  Book,  p.  585.) 

At  first  Judge  Ould  refused  to  treat  with  General  Butler  at 
all,  but  in  order  to  resume  the  cartel,  which  he  was  anxious  to 
do,  this  position  was  soon  abandoned,  and  so  on  the  30th  of 
MarcH,  1864,  he,  by  appointment,  conferred  with  General  Butler 
on  the  subject  of  resuming  the  exchange.  As  the  result  of  this  in 
terview,  General  Butler  wrote  the  Secretary  of  War  that  with 
the  exception  of  the  question  about  the  exchange  of  Negroes,  "all 
other  points  of  difference  were  substantially  agreed  upon,  so  that 
the  exchange  might  go  on  readily  and  smoothly,  man  for  man  and 
officer  for  officer,  of  equal  rank,  and  officers  for  their  equivalents 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  131 

in  privates,  as  settled  by  the  cartel."  (Butler's  Book,  p.  590.) 
Judge  Ould  left  General  Butler  on  the  31st  of  March,  with  the 
understanding  that  Butler  would  confer  with  his  Government 
about  the  points  discussed,  and  then  confer  further  with  him. 

"In  the  meantime  the  exchanges  of  sick  and  wounded  and  spe 
cial  exchanges  were  to  go  on." 

On  the  first  day  of  April,  1864,  General  U.  S.  Grant  appeared 
on  the  scene,  and  General  Butler  says: 

"To  him  the  state  of  the  negotiations  as  to  exchange  was  com 
municated,  and  most  emphatic  verbal  directions  were  received  from 
the  Lieutenant-General  not  to  take  any  steps  by  which  another 
able-bodied  man  should  be  exchanged  until  further  orders  from 
him/'  Butler's  Book,  p.  592. 

And  the  reason  assigned  by  General  Grant  for  this  course  was 
that,  the  exchange  of  prisoners  would  so  strengthen  General  Lee's 
army  as  to  greatly  prolong  the  war,  and  therefore  it  was  better 
that  the  prisoners  then  in  confinement  should  remain  so,  no  mat 
ter  what  sufferings  would  be  entailed  thereby.  "I  said,"  says  Gen 
eral  Butler,  "I  doubted  whether,  if  we  stopped  exchanging  man 
for  man,  simply  on  the  ground  that  our  soldiers  were  more  useful 
to  us  in  Rebel  prisons  than  they  would  be  in  our  lines,  however 
true  that  might  be,  or  speciously  stated  to  the  country,  the  propo 
sition  could  not  be  sustained  against  the  clamor  that  would  at  once 
arise  against  the  administration."  *  *  *  Id.,  p.  594.  And  he 
adds: 

"  These  instructions  in  the  then  state  of  negotiations  rendered 
any  further  exchanges  impossible  and  retaliation  useless/' 

This  condition  of  affairs,  for  which,  as  we  have  seen,  General 
Grant  was  solely  responsible,  continued,  with  little  change,  till 
the  latter  part  of  January,  1865.  It  was  during  this  interval  of 
nearly  a  year  that  the  greatest  sufferings  and  mortality  occurred. 
Finally  the  clamor  was  so  great  for  a  renewal  of  the  cartel  that 
General  Grant  consented,  and  from  that  date  exchanges  continued 
to  the  end  of  the  war,  although  when  a  large  number  of  prisoners 
were  sent  to  General  Schofield,  at  Wilmington,  on  February  21st, 
1865,  he  refused  to  receive  them.  Vol.  VIII.,  p.  286. 


132  Official  Reports  of  the 

On  the  10th  of  January,  1864,  in  view  of  the  large  numbers 
of  prisoners  then  held  on  both  sides,  and  the  sufferings  conse 
quently  engendered  thereby,  Judge  Quid  addressed  a  letter  to 
Major  (afterwards  General)  Mulford,  proposing  to  deliver  all  pris 
oners  held  by  us  for  an  equivalent  held  by  the  Federals.  But  to 
this  letter  no  reply  was  ever  made.  On  the  22nd  of  August  he 
wrote  making  the  same  offer  to  General  Hitchcock,  but  received 
no  reply  to  this  letter  either.  And  so  on  the  31st  of  August,  1864, 
Judge  Ould  published  a  statement  setting  forth  in  detail  the 
efforts  made  by  the  Confederate  authorities  to  carry  out  the  cartel 
in  good  faith,  stating  how  it  had  been  violated  from  time  to  time, 
and  finally  suspended,  solely  by  the  bad  faith  and  bad  conduct  of 
the  Federals. 

On  the  1st  of  October,  1864,  General  Lee  proposed  to  General 
Grant  to  renew  the  cartel,  but  no  agreement  could  be  reached  on 
the  subject,  and  so  on  the  6th  of  October,  1864,  Judge  Ould  ad 
dressed  a  letter  to  General  Mulford  and  proposed,  in  view  of  the 
probabilities  of  the  long  confinement  of  prisoners  on  both  sides, 
"that  some  measures  be  adopted  for  the  relief  of  such  as  are  held 
by  either  party.  To  that  end,  I  propose,"  says  he,  "that  each  Gov 
ernment  shall  have  the  privilege  of  forwarding  for  the  use  and 
comfort  of  such  of  its  prisoners  as  are  held  by  the  other,  necessary 
articles  of  food  and  clothing/'  *  *  *  P.  930. 

Whilst  this  proposition  was  finally  accepted  by  the  Federals,  it 
took  a  whole  month  to  get  their  consent  to  it.  General  Mulford's 
reply  is  dated  November  6th,  1864.  As  early  in  that  year  as  Jan 
uary  24th,  Judge  Ould  had  written  General  Hitchcock,  proposing 
that  the  prisoners  on  each  side  be  attended  by  their  own  surgeons, 
and  that  these  surgeons  should  "act  as  Commissaries,' with  power 
to  receive  and  distribute  such  contributions  of  money,  food,  cloth 
ing,  and  medicines  as  may  be  forwarded  for  the  relief  of  prisoners." 
"  I  further  propose,"  (says  he),  "  that  these  surgeons  be  detailed  by 
their  own  Governments,  and  that  they  shall  have  full  liberty  at 
any  and  all  times,  through  the  agents  of  exchange,  to  make  re 
ports,  not  only  of  their  own  acts,  but  of  any  matters  relating  to 
the  welfare  of  prisoners." 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  133 

"  To  this  very  important  and  humane  letter/'  Judge  Ould  says, 
"No  reply  was  ever  made."  1  S.  H.  S.  Papers,  128.  If  its  terms 
had  been  accepted  by  the  Federals  (and  nothing  could  have  been 
fairer),  what  sufferings  would  have  been  prevented  and  how  many 
lives  would  have  been  saved?  But,  as  we  now  know,  General 
Grant  did  not  wish  to  keep  these  men  from  dying  in  our  prisons. 
On  the  contrary,  he  preferred  that  the  Confederates  should  be  bur 
dened  with  caring  for  them  when  living  and  charged  with  their  death 
should  they  die,  and  in  this  way  he  would  continue  to  "fire  the 
Northern  heart"  against  us.  On  the  same  principle,  and  for  the 
same  reason,  he  not  only  refused  to  agree  to  let  ua  purchase  medi 
cine  and  other  necessary  supplies  for  these  sick  prisoners,  but  re 
fused  for  months  to  receive  from  ten  to  fifteen  thousand,  which  we 
offered  to  deliver  up  without  receiving  any  equivalent  in  return. 
But  above  all  these,  he  did  not  wish -them  exchanged,  because  of 
the  recruits  which  would  thereby  come  to  General  Lee's  army. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact,  as  shown  by  our  last  report,  it  was  by 
General  Grant's  orders  that  General  Sheridan  devastated  the  Val 
ley  of  Virginia,  as  he  did,  yet  his  considerate  treatment  of  Gen 
eral  Lee  and  his  men  at  Appomattox  and  his  fidelity  to  General 
Lee's  parole  there  given,  after  the  war,  have  caused  us  to  think 
kindly  of  him  and  to  place  him  in  a  different  class  from  that  in 
which  we  have  placed  Stanton,  Halleck,  Sherman,  Sheridan,  Pope, 
Butler,  Hunter,  Milroy.  and  other  Federal  officers,  who  took  such 
delight  in  treating  us  with  such  wicked  and  wanton  brutality  during 
the  war.  But  as  has  been  recently  said  of  him,  by  a  distinguished 
Northern  writer,  who  was  an  officer  in  his  army,  and  therefore 
knew  him  better  than  we  did.  General  Grant  was  "of  coarse  moral 
as  well  as  physical  fibre" ;  and  nothing  demonstrates  this  more 
clearly  than  the  cruel  and  heartless  way  in  which  he  treated  his 
own  as  well  as  our  prisoners.  He  was  so  vindictive  and  cruel  that 
on  February  7th,  1865,  he  refused  to  make  any  arrangement  with 
Judge  Ould  whereby  our  prisoners  could  receive  contributions  of 
assistance  from  friends  at  the  North.  (Vol.  VIII.,  p.  140.)  And 
as  we  have  just  seen,  he  preferred  that  his  own  men  should  die 
in  our  prisons,  rather  than  to  relieve  them,  when  we  offered  to  de- 


134  Official  Reports  of  the 

liver  them  to  him  without  any  equivalent  in  return,  because  of  the 
great  mortality  at  Andersonville,  which  we  were  unable  to  avert,  and 
of  which  he  was  fully  apprised. 

At  the  expense  of  being  tedious,  then,  we  have  thought  it  right 
to  give  in  much  detail  the  facts  in  relation  to  the  formation  and 
operation  of  the  cartel  for  the  exchange  of  prisoners,  and  to  show 
clearly  from  the  records,  why  this  cartel  was  suspended,  and  who 
was  responsible  therefor.  And  we  have  done  so,  because  this 
conduct  was  the  true  cause  of  substantially  all  the  sufferings  and 
deaths  which  came  to  the  prisoners  on  both  sides  during  the  war. 
That  we  have  shown  that  the  Federal  Government.,  with  Edwin  M. 
Stanton,  H.  W.  Halleck  and  U.  8.  Grant  as  its  representatives,  is 
solely  responsible,,  we  think  cannot  be  denied,  and  that  history  will 
so  attest. 

Mr.  Charles  A.  Dana,  the  Federal  Assistant  Secretary  of  War, 
in  an  editorial  in  the  New  York  Sun,  commenting  on  the  letter 
of  Mr.  Davis  to  Mr.  James  Lyons,  written  in  reference  to  the  stric 
tures  of  Mr.  Elaine,  referred  to  in  the  early  part  of  this  report, 
said,  as  follows: 

"This  letter  shows  clearly,  we  think,  that  the  Confederate  au 
thorities,  and  especially  Mr.  Davis,  ought  not  to  be  held  responsi 
ble  for  the  terrible  privations,  sufferings  and  injuries  which  our 
men  had  to  endure  while  they  were  kept  in  Confederate  military 
prisons.  The  fact  is  unquestionable,  that  while  the  Confederates 
desired  to  exchange  prisoners,  to  send  our  men  home,  and  to  get 
back  their  own,  General  Grant  steadily  and  strenuously  resisted 
such  an  exchange."  *  *  * 

" '  It  is  hard  on  our  men  held  in  Southern  prisons,'  said  Grant, 
in  an  official  communication,  'not  to  exchange  them;  but  it  is  hu 
mane  to  those  left  in  the  ranks  to  fight  our  battles.  If  we  com 
mence  a  system  of  exchanges  which  liberates  all  prisoners  taken, 
we  will  have  to  fight  on  until  the  whole  South  is  exterminated. 
If  we  hold  those  caught  they  are  no  more  than  dead  men.' "  *  *  * 

"This  evidence  (says  Dana)  must  be  taken  as  conclusive.  It 
proves  that  it  was  not  the  Confederate  authorities  who  insisted 
on  keeping  our  prisoners  in  distress,  want  and  disease,  but  the 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  135 

commander  of  our  own  armies."  *  *  *  "Moreover  (says  he) 
there  is  no  evidence  whatever,  that  it  was  practicable  for  the  Con 
federate  authorities  to  feed  our  prisoners  any  better  than  they 
were  fed,  or  to  give  them  airy  better  care  and  attention  than  they 
received.  The  food  was  insufficient,  the  care  andt  attention  were 
insufficient,  no  doubt,  and  yet  the  condition  of  our  prisoners  was 
not  worse  than  that  of  the  Confederate  soldiers  in  the  field,  except 
in  so  far  as  the  condition  of  those  in  prison  must  of  necessity  be 
worse  than  that  of  men  who  are  free  and  active  outside." 

This  is  the  statement,  as  we  have  said,  of  the  Federal  Assistant 
Secretary  of  War,  during  the  war,  and,  of  course,  he  knew  whereof 
he  wrote.  He  was  the  man  by  whose  authority  General  Miles  put 
the  shackles  upon  Mr.  Davis,  when  he  was  in  prison  at  Fortress 
Monroe,  and  was,  therefore,  prejudiced  in  the  highest  degree 
against  Mr.  Davis  and  the  Confederate  authorities  generally.  And 
his  statement  must  lie  taken  as  conclusive  of  this  whole  question. 

When  we  add  to  this  the  pregnant  fact  that  the  report  of  the 
Federal  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Stanton,  dated  July  19,  1866, 
shows  that  of  the  Federal  prisoners  in  Confederate  prisons  only 
22,576  died;  whilst  of  the  Confederate  prisoners  in  Federal  pris 
ons  26,436  died,  and  the  report  of  the  Federal  Surgeon  General 
Barnes,  published  after  the  war,  showing  that  the  whole  number 
of  Federal  prisoners  captured  and  confined  in  Southern  prisons 
during  the  war  was,  in  round  numbers,  270,000  while  the  whole 
number  of  Confederate  prisoners  captured  and  confined  in  North 
ern  prisons  was,  in  like  round  numbers,  220,000.  From  these  two 
reports  it  will  be  seen  that  whilst  there  were  50,000  more  pris 
oners  in  Southern  than  in  Northern  prisons,  during  the  war,  the 
deaths  were  four  thousand  less.  The  per  centum  of  deaths  in 
Southern  prisons  being  under  nine,  while  the  per  centum  of  deaths 
in  Northern  prisons  was  over  twelve. 

We  think  it  useless  to  prolong  this  discussion,  and  feel  confi 
dent  that  we  can  safely  submit  our  conduct  on  this,  as  on  every 
other  point  involved  in  the  war,  to  the  judgment  of  posterity  and 
the  impartial  historian,  and  can  justly  apply  to  the  Southern  Con 
federacy  the  language  of  Philip  Stanhope  Wormsley,  of  Oxford 


136  Official  Reports  of  the 

University,  England,  in  the  dedication  of  his  translation  of  Ho 
mer's  Iliad  to  General  Eobert  E,  Lee,  "the  most  stainless  of  earthly 
commanders,  and,  except  in  fortune,  the  greatest." 

"Thy  Troy  is  fallen,  thy  dear  land 
Is  marred  beneath  the  spoiler's  heel; 
I  cannot  trust  my  trembling  hand 
To  write  the  things  I  feel. 

"Ah  realm  of  tombs;  but  let  her  bear 
This  blazon  to  the  end  of  time: 
No  nation  rose  so  white  and  fair, 
None  fell  so  pure  of  crime." 


HISTORIES  NOW  USED  IN  OUR  SCHOOLS. 


We  have  but  little  to  add  to  what  was  said  in  our  former  re 
ports  concerning  the  histories  now  being  taught  in  our  schools, 
except  to  express  our  sincere  regret  that  the  State  Board  of  Edu 
cation,  after  first  excluding  it,  reversed  its  action,  and  put  on  the 
list  of  histories  to  be  used  in  our  public  schools,  the  work  entitled 
"Our  Country,"  by  Messrs.  Cooper,  Estill  &  Lemon.  And  with 
the  profoundest  respect  for  each  member  of  the  Board,  we  think 
they  committed  an  unintentional  mistake. 

We  understand  the  Board  based  its  later  action  on  the  ground 
that  the  edition  of  this  work,  published  in  1901,  contained  impor 
tant  amendments,  as  well  as  omissions,  not  found  in  that  of  1896, 
which  was,  in  our  opinion,  so  justly  criticised  and  condemned  by 
the  late  Dr.  Hunter  McGuire  and  Rev.  S.  Taylor  Martin,  D.  D.,  in 
their  reports  to  this  Camp  in  1899.  Whilst  it  is  true  that  this 
latest  edition  has  been  freed  from  many  of  the  objections  then 
urged  against  the  former  edition,  and  it  is  apparent  that  the 
authors  have  profited  by  these  criticisms,  and  tried  to  adapt  this 
"new  issue"  to  the  sentiments  which  gave  them  birth;  yet  there 
are  such  fundamental  objections  to  this  work  still  that  should,  in 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  0.  V.  137 

our  opinion,,  have  excluded  it  from  our  schools  forever.  In  the 
first  place,  we  call  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the  new  edition  does 
not  show  on  the  cover,  or  elsewhere,  that  it  is  a  new  edition  at  all. 
It  is  bound  and  labeled  just  as  the  former  was;  the  preface  in  the 
new  edition  is  dated  in  1895,  and  is  the  same  as  that  in  the  old; 
so  that  if  the  publishers  were  so  disposed,  they  could  easily  palm 
off  on  the  unwary  teacher  or  child  the  old  for  the  new  edition. 

But  we  have  other  objections  to  the  book  of  a  much  more  serious 
character.  The  first  is,  that  the  authors  are  the  same  in  both 
editions,  and  authors  who  could  state  the  causes  of  the  war,  as 
stated  in  the  first  edition  at  Section  521,  and  then  state  them 
(when  objected  to)  as  in  Section  520  in  the  new  edition,  are  not, 
in  our  opinion,  such  historians  as  we  should  allow  to  write 
history  for  our  children,  it  matters  not  if  they  are  Southern 
writers.  This  smacks  too  much  of  the  methods  said  to  be  pursued 
by  the  G.  A.  E.  of  "making  history  to  order."  As  Dr.  Martin 
wrote  of  the  first  edition,  so  think  we  of  this.  He  said : 

"The  book  is  a  feeble  production.  The  controlling  idea  is  evi 
dently  the  production  of  a  history  that  would  be  acceptable  to  both 
North  and  South." 

To  accomplish  such  a  task  is  (as  it  should  be)  an  impossibility. 
But  we  condemn  this  work  more  for  what  it  fails  to  say  about  the 
causes  of  the  war,  than  for  any  inaccuracies  we  have  noticed  in 
what  it  does  say  on  that  and  other  subjects.  Its  text  is  on  the 
order  of  those  who  say,  "we  thought  we  were  right,"  rather  than 
that  "we  were  right."  We  did  know  we  were  right  then,  and 
we  do  know  it  now;  and  we  are  entitled  to  have  this  told  to  our 
children. 

Writers  at  the  North  are  almost  daily  saying  to  the  world  that 
the  Southern  States  had  the  right  to  secede.  Even  Goldwin  Smith, 
the  most  learned  and  able,  as  well  as  the  most  prejudiced  historian 
against  the  South,  who  has  written  about  the  war,  said  in  the 
Atlantic  Monthly  of  this  year: 

"Few  who  have  looked  into  the  history,  can  doubt  that  the 
Union  originally  was,  and  was  generally  taken  by  the  parties  to  it 
to  be,  a  compact,  dissoluble,  perhaps  most  of  them  would  have 


138  Official  Reports  of  the 

said,  at  pleasure,  dissoluble  certainly  on  breach  of  the  articles  of 
the  Union." 

And  that  liberal  and  cultured  statesman  and  writer,  Mr.  Charles 
Francis  Adams,  of  Boston,  in  an  address  delivered  by  him  in  June 
last  in  Chicago,  (whilst  as  we  understand  him,  not  conceding 
the  right  of  secession  to  exist  in  1861),  said,  quoting  from  Bonn 
Piet's  Life  of  General  George  H.  Thomas,  as  follows: 

"Today  no  impartial  student  of  our  constitutional  history  can 
doubt  for  a  moment,  that  each  State  ratified  the  form  of  govern 
ment  submitted  in  the  firm  belief  that  at  any  time  it  could  with 
draw  therefrom." 

With  our  quondam  enemies  thus  telling  the  world  that  we  had 
the  right  to  do  what  we  tried  to  do,  and  only  asked  to  be  let  alone, 
and  when  we  know  that  when  we  did  go  to  war,  we  only  went  to 
repel  a  ruthless  invasion  of  our  homes  and  firesides,  our  case  could 
not  be  made  stronger.  And  we  have  the  right,  therefore,  to  insist 
that  our  children  shall  be  told  the  truth  about  it,  and  we  should  be 
content  with  nothing  less. 

Dr.  Jones,  in  his  history,  says: 

"The  seceding  States  not  only  had  a  perfect  right  to  withdraw 
from  the  Union,  but  they  had  amply  sufficient  cause  for  doing  so, 
and  that  the  war  made  upon  them  by  the  North  was  utterly  un 
justifiable,  oppressive  and  cruel,  and  that  the  South  could  honor- 
orably  have  pursued  no  other  course,  than  to  resist  force  with 
force,  and  make  her  great  struggle  for  constitutional  freedom/' 
Is  there  any  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  Southerner  that  this  is 
the  truth  ?  If  not,  then  let  it  be  so  told  to  our  children.  We  suf 
fered  and  did  and  dared  enough  to  entitle  us  to  have  this  done, 
and  that  we  were  unsuccessful  makes  it  the  more  important  that 
it  should  be  done.  A  successful  cause  will  take  care  of  itself; 
an  unsuccessful  one  must  rest  only  on  its  inherent  merits,  and  if  it 
can't  do  this,  then  those  who  supported  it  were  rebels  and  traitors. 
We  feel  then  that  we  can't  do  better  than  to  repeat  here  what  we 
said  in  our  report  of  1900,  on  the  importance  of  the  trust  com 
mitted  to  our  hands.  We  then  said : 

"Appomattox  was  not  a  judicial  forum:  it  was  only  a  battle- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  139 

field,  a  test  of  physical  force,  where  the  starving  remnant  of  the 
Army  of  Northern  Virginia,  "wearied  with  victory,"  surrendered 
to  "overwhelming  numbers  and  resources."  We  make  no  appeal 
from  that  judgment,  on  the  issue  of  force.  But  when  we  see  the 
victors  in  that  contest,  meeting  year  by  year,  and  using  the  supe 
rior  means  at  their  command,  to  publish  to  the  world  that  they 
were  right  and  that  we  were  wrong  in  that  contest,  saying  that 
we  were  "rebels"  and  "traitors,"  in  defending  our  homes  and  fire 
sides  against  their  cruel  invasion,  that  we  had  no  legal  right  to 
withdraw  from  the  Union,  when  we  only  asked  to  be  let  alone,  and 
that  we  brought  on  that  war :  we  say,  when  these,  pnd  other  wicked 
and  false  charges  are  brought  against  us  from  year  to  year,  and 
the  attempt  is  systematically  made  to  teach  our  children  that 
these  things  are  true,  and  therefore,  that  we  do  not  deserve  their 
sympathy  and  respect  because  of  our  alleged  wicked  and  unjusti 
fiable  course  in  that  war  and  in  bringing  it  on — then  it  becomes 
our  duty,  not  only  to  ourselves  and  our  children,  but  to  the  thous 
ands  of  brave  men  and  women  who  gave  their  lives  a  "free-will 
offering "  in  defence  of  the  principles  for  which  we  fought,  to 
vindicate  the  justice  of  our  cause,  and  to  do  this  we  have  to  appeal 
only  to  the  bar  of  truth  and  of  justice." 

Respectfully  submitted, 

GEORGE  L.  CHRISTIAN, 

Chairman. 


REPORT 

BY 

HON.  GEO.  L.  CHRISTIAN, 

Chairman. 

OCTOBER  28,  1903. 
NORTH  CAROLINA  AND  VIRGINIA  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR. 


REPORT  OF  OCTOBER  28,   1903 


To  the  Grand  Camp  of  Confederate  Veterans  of  Virginia; 

Your  History  Committee  again  returns  its  thanks  to  you  and 
the  public  for  the  nattering  and  cordial  way  in  which  you  have  re 
ceived  its  last  report.  It  will  be  as  gratifying  to  you  as  it  is  to 
the  committee  to  know  that  we  have  heard  of  no  attempt  to  con 
trovert  any  statement  contained  in  any  report  of  this  committee 
up  to  this  time.  It  will  also  be  gratifying  to  you  to  learn  that  at 
the  late  reunion  of  the  United  Confederate  Veterans,  held  in  New 
Orleans,  the  several  reports  of  your  committee  were  not  only  in 
corporated  as  a  part  !of  the  report  of  the  History  Committee  of 
that  great  organization,  but  received  its  unanimous  and  unquali 
fied  endorsement. 

REGRETS    OF   COMMITTEE. 

We  had  expected  in  this  report  to  discuss  a  ver)>r  different  sub 
ject  from  that  which  now  claims  our  attention.  Indeed,  we  deeply 
regret  that  the  matter  which  demands  our  attention  at  this  time 
should  have  to  be  considered  by  us  at  all.  But  we  conceive  it  to 
be  our  first  duty  to  our  mother  State  to  see  that  her  record  in  the 
Confederate  war  is  kept  true,  and  not  misunderstood  or  misrepre 
sented  by  either  friend  or  foe.  We  have  always  deprecated  con 
troversies  between  the  Confederates.  We  think,  as  General  Early 
once  said,  there  is  glory  enough  attached  to  the  Confederate  strug 
gle  for  all  of  us  to  have  a  share,  that  we  should  stand  together  and 
see  that  the  truth  of  that  conflict  is  preserved;  this  is  all  we  have 
a  right  to  ask,  and  we  should  be  content  ivith  nothing  less. 

This  being  our  position,  we  repeat  our  sincere  regret  that  some 
recent  publications  from  representatives  of  our  sister  State  of 
North  Carolina  have  come  to  us  in  such  a  way,  and  that  these  pub 
lications  emanate  from  such  sources,  that  they  demand  considera 
tion  and  attention  at  the  hands  of  your  committee.  We  again  re 
peat  our  sorrow  that  we  feel  compelled  to  notice  these  matters, 

[143] 


144  Official  Reports  of  the 

and  in  doing  so  we  shall  strive  to  say  nothing  which  will  even  tend 
to  detract  from  the  fame  won  by  the  glorious  "Old  North  State" 
in  the  Confederate  war,  except  in  so  far  as  attempts  have  been 
made  to  augment  that  fame  at  the  expense  of  Virginia. 

THE  PEOPLE  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA. 

We  know  the  people  of  North  Carolina  and  greatly  admire 
their  many  virtues  and  noble  characteristics.  We  knew  the  sol 
diers  sent  by  her  to  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia,  We  have 
seen  their  splendid  bearing  and  frightful  sacrifices  on  many  a 
field  of  carnage,  and  we  bear  willing  testimony  to  the  fact  that 
no  truer,  better,  or  braver  soldiers  ever  stood  on  the  Cfbloody  front 
of  battle."  North  Carolina  is  truly  a  great  State,  inhabited  by 
a  noble  people,  and  with  a  record  of  which  she  has  a  right  to  be 
proud.  We  love  State  pride,  and  particularly  that  State  pride 
and  devotion  to  principle  which  has  made  North  Carolina  do 
what  she  could  to  preserve  the  names  and  records  of  her  soldiers 
in  the  Confederate  armies.  Every  other  Southern  State  should 
follow  her  example,  no  matter  what  it  may  cost  to  do  so. 

No  truer  patriots  ever  lived  or  died  for  their  country  than  those 
who  fought  in  the  Confederate  armies.  These  men  are  as  well 
satisfied  now  as  they  ever  were  that  their  cause  was  just.  They 
enlisted  at  the  command  of  their  several  States;  they  did  their 
duty  to  the  best  of  their  ability;  they  are,  and  have  a  right  to  be, 
proud  of  their  achievements,  and  they  have  a  right  to  expect  that 
their  States  will  see  to  it  that  their  names  and  the  record  of  their 
deeds  are  preserved. 

CLAIMS  MADE  BY  NORTH  CAROLINA. 

Conceding,  as  we  cheerfully  do,  the  great  fame  achieved  by 
North  Carolina  in  the  Confederate  war,  it  seems  to  us,  from  read 
ing  the  publications  to  which  we  have  referred,  that  some  of  our 
friends  from  that  State  have  not  been  either  just  or  generous  in 
some  of  their  allusions  to  her  sister  States,  and  have  seemed  both 
spiteful  and  boastful  in  some  of  their  charges,  claims,  and  refer 
ences  to  their  "next-door  neighbor,"  Virginia.  What  Virginia 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  145 

may  have  done  to  provoke  this,  we  are  not  advised.  If  aught,  we 
regret  it.  It  is  these  charges,  these  claims,  and  seeming  reflec 
tions  on  Virginia  alone,  that  we  now  propose  to  consider,  as  we 
feel  in  duty  bound  to  do.  In  doing  this  we  shall  not  imitate  the 
course  pursued  by  some  of  the  writers  to  whom  we  have  referred. 
Some  of  these  have  not  hesitated  to  reflect  on  the  people  and  sol 
diers  from  Virginia  in  the  harshest  and,  in  our  opinion,  most 
unjust  manner.  We  shall  not  imitate  these  writers  (1)  because 
we  feel  confident  they  do  not,  in  their  criticisms  of  Virginia  and 
her  people,  reflect  the  real  feelings  of  North  Carolinians  toward 
Virginia,  and  (2)  because  neither  the  people  of  Virginia  nor 
the  soldiers  sent  by  her  to  the  Confederate  armies  need  any  de 
fense  at  our  hands.  The  presentation  of  the  truth  of  what  Vir 
ginia  did  and  dared  and  suffered  for  the  Confederate  cause  is  her 
complete  vindication,  and  it  is  a  part  of  this  task  that  we  now 
filially  but  cheerfully  assume. 

THAT    SHE    FURNISHED    MORE    TROOPS. 

First.  The  first  and  most  serious  claim  made  by  North  Caro 
lina  is  that  she  furnished  more  troops  to  the  Confederacy  than 
any  other  Southern  State. 

This  claim  has  been  made  and  published  far  and  wide,  and,  as 
far  as  we  know,  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  refute  it.  It 
generally  assumes  the  form  of  a  boast,  but  is  sometimes  made  the 
basis  of  a  complaint.  We  saw  not  long  since  in  a  North  Caro 
lina  paper  (the  Charlotte  Observer  of  May  17,  1903,)  a  statement 
from  the  pen  of  a  distinguished  writer  of  that  State,  in  which  he 
complained  that  partiality  had  been  shown  to  Virginia,  and  con 
sequent  injustice  done  to  North  Carolina,  during  the  war,  in  the 
appointment  of  the  general  officers  of  the  army,  especially,  he 
said,  since  Virginia  had  furnished  only  about  ,76,000  troops  to 
the  Confederacy  to  North  Carolina's  126,000,  or  50,000  more  than 
Virginia. 

PRESIDENT    DAVIS. 

So  far  as  the  question  of  partiality  is  concerned,  since  President 
9 


146  Official  Reports  of  the 

Davis,  who  made  all  these  appointments,,  was  not  a  Virginian, 
there  was  no  reason  why  he  should  have  been  partial  to  Vir 
ginians  unless  their  merits  warranted  it.  And,  in  our  opinion, 
no  good  reason  is  given  by  this  writer  for  any  such  alleged  mis 
conduct  on  his  part.  We  believe  Mr.  Davis  was  not  only  a  true 
patriot  but  a  great  and  good  man,  and  that  it  would  have  been 
almost  impossible  to  have  found  any  one  who  could  or  would  have 
discharged  the  delicate  and  difficult  duties  of  his  office  more  sat 
isfactorily  to  all  than  he  did. 

But  what  concerns  us  far  more  is  the  claim  made  by  this  writer 
that  North  Carolina,  with  a  smaller  white  population  than  Vir 
ginia,  furnished  fifty  thousand  more  troops  to  the  Confederacy. 
This  claim  necessarily  implies  that  North  Carolina  was  more  loyal 
to  the  Confederate  cause  than  Virginia,  or,  in  other  words,  dis 
charged  her  duty  in  this,  the  greatest  crisis  in  the  history  of  these 
States,  better  than  Virginia. 

Let  us  examine  the  record  on  this  point  first,  then,  and  see  if 
this  claim,  is  sustained  by  it. 

In  Series  IV.,  Vol.  III.,  at  page  95,  of  what  are  termed  "The 
War  of  the  Rebellion  Official  Kecords,"  will  be  found  a  carefully 
prepared  official  report  to  the  "Bureau  of  Conscription"  of  the 
Confederate  War  Department,  giving  in  much  detail  the  number 
and  character  of  the  troops  furnished  by  the  States  of  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Missis 
sippi  up  to  January  25,  1864.  This  report  shows  that  the  "total 
number  of  men  sent  to  the  field"  by  Virginia  up  to  that  time  was 
(page  102)  153,  876,  whilst  the  total  number  sent  by  North  Caro 
lina  up  to  that  time  was  only  88,457,  or  65,419  less  than  Virginia. 

This  report  further  shows  that  according  to  the  then  last  cen 
sus  there  were  remaining  in  Virginia,  between  the  ages  of  eighteen 
and  forty-five,  13,248  men  to  be  accounted  for  as  soldiers;  and  in 
North  Carolina,  12,877.  So  that,  if  every  man  of  those  unac 
counted  for  in  North  Carolina  had  been  subsequently  sent  to  the 
field,  and  not  one  of  those  from  Virginia,  still,  according  to  this 
report,  Virginia  would  have  furnished  fifty-two  thousand,  five 
hundred  and  forty-three  more  than  North  Caroling. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  0.  V.  147 

At  page  99  of  this  report,  in  referring  to  North  Carolina,  the 
following  statement  is  made: 

"  The  Adjutant  General  of  the  State  has  estimated  that  the 
State  has  put  into  the  service  100,000  men,  but  his  calculations 
contain  an  apparent  error,  in  which  he  has  accounted  for  14,000 
men  twice.  His  estimate  should  therefore  be  less  than  mine/' 

"We  do  not  quote  this  for  the  purpose  of  intimating  that 
North  Carolina  may  (unintentionally,  of  course,)  still  be  "count 
ing  twice,"  in  making  up  the  number  she  now  claims,  but  only 
to  show  that  her  own  Adjutant  General  did  not  then  claim  that 
North  Carolina  had  furnished  more  than  one  hundred  thousand 
men,  whilst  Virginia  had  then  sent  to  the  field,  as  shown  by  this 
report,  one  hundred  and  fifty-three  thousand,  eight  hundred  and 
seventy-six,  and  rather  more  than  double  the  number  with  which 
she  is  credited  by  the  distinguished  writer  to  whom  we  have  just 
referred. 

At  page  100  of  this  same  report,  in  accounting  for  the  troops 
furnished  by  South  Carolina,  occurs  this  item  and  statement — 
viz.: 

"Without  passing  through  camps  13,953." 

"A  large  part  of  this  number  (13,953)  will  be  found  to  have 
volunteered  in  North  Carolina  regiments,  having  been  drawn  into 
that  State  by  the  inducements  of  double  bounty,  which  was  at 
one  time  offered  to  volunteers." 

These  troops  from  South  Carolina  are,  doubtless,  counted  by 
North  Carolina  in  the  number  she  now  claims,  and  may,  to  some 
extent,  account  for  how  she  furnished  10,000  more  soldiers  to  the 
Confederacy  than  her  voting  population,  as  shown  in  a  then  recent 
election,  of  which  fact  she  now  justly  boasts. 

REPORT  CORRECT. 

As  showing  that  the  report  from  which  we  have  quoted  is  sub 
stantially  correct,  the  largest  number  of  troops  we  have  seen  any 
where  claimed  to  have  been  furnished  by  North  Carolina  is  that 
contained  in  the  report  from  the  present  Adjutant  General's  office, 
and  this  number  is  put  at  about  127,000,  and,  of  course,  this  in- 


148  Official  Reports  of  the 

eludes  the  "total  of  all  men  disposed  of"  from  the  State — all  in 
the  field,  and  all  exemptions  from  whatever  cause.  The  report 
from  which  we  have  quoted  above  (page  103)  gives  North  Caro 
lina  126,623  and  to  Virginia  (counting  in  the  same  way)  178,933, 
or  52,316  more  than  North  Carolina. 

COMPARATIVE   NUMBER    OF   REGIMENTS,    ETC. 

Whilst  this  report  gives  the  number  of  regiments,  battalions, 
and  batteries  furnished  by  Virginia,  it  does  not  give  the  number 
of  those  furnished  by  North  Carolina.  But  we  are  enabled  to 
supply  this  apparent  omission  from  another  source,  to  be  found  in 
the  same  volume  at  page  722.  As  late  as  October  11,  1864,  Gov. 
Vance  wrote  to  Gen.  Bragg  (a  native  of  North  Carolina),  then 
stationed  in  Richmond,  asking  Bragg  to  furnish  him  with  the 
number  of  troops  furnished  by  North  Carolina  to  the  Confederacy, 
and  saying  he  wished  this  information  in  order  to  "know  what 
North  Carolina  had  done  in  comparison  with  the  other  States,"  in 
view  of  a  proposed  meeting  of  the  Governors  of  the  South,  then 
about  to  assemble  at  Augusta,  Ga.  On  this  letter  of  inquiry  there 
is  an  indorsement  stating  that,  whilst  the  number  of  troops  fur 
nished  by  North  Carolina  could  not  be  given  without  laborious  re 
search,  there  was  then  in  the  Confederate  service  from  that  State 
sixty-seven  regiments,  five  battalions,  twelve  unattached  companies, 
two  State  regiments  doing  service  for  the  Confederacy,  and  nine 
battalions  of  reserves  then  organized.  The  report  of  January  25, 
1864,  above  referred  to,  shows  that  Virginia  had  then  sent  to  the 
field  sixty-three  regiments  of  infantry,  forty  battalions  of  infan 
try,  twenty  regiments  of  cavalry,  forty  battalions  of  cavalry,  and 
one  hundred  and  twenty-five  batteries  of  artillery  (page  96). 

A  comparison  of  these  organizations  of  the  two  States  gives  this 
result — viz. :  That  where  Nqrth  Carolina  had  furnished  the  Con 
federacy,  in  all  arms  of  the  service,  sixty-nine  regiments,  Virginia 
had  furnished  eighty-three;  where  North  Carolina  had  furnished 
fourteen  'battalions,  Virginia  had  furnished  eighty;  and  where 
North  Carolina  had  furnished  twelve  unattached  companies  (pre 
sumably  batteries),  Virginia  had  furnished  one  hundred  and 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  149 

twenty-five  batteries;  and  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  report 
showing  the  number  of  these  Virginia  organizations  is  dated  eight 
months  in  advance  of  that  showing  the  number  of  the  North  Caro 
lina  organizations. 

COMPARATIVE  EXEMPTIONS. 

Second.  Another  charge  made  ~by  another  distinguished  North 
Carolina  writer  (Capt.  W.  R.  Bond  in  his  pamphlet  entitled 
"  Pickett  or  Pettigrew,")  is  that  "  citizens  of  Virginia  were  filling 
nearly  one-half  of  the  positions  of  honor  and  trust,  civil  and  mili 
tary"  in  the  Confederacy. 

So  far  as  the  appointment  of  the  general  officers  of  the  army 
is  involved  in  this  charge,  we  have  already  said  that  we  believed 
they  were  made  by  Mr.  Davis  solely  on  the  merits  of  the  ap 
pointees;  and  we  think  it  will  be  admitted  by  all  that  some  of 
these  appointments  could  not  have  been  improved  upon,  or  per 
haps  made  at  all  from  any  other  State. 

As  to  the  charge,  so  far  as  it  applied  to  the  other  military  offi 
cers,  this  was  made  by  Gov.  Vance  during  the  war,  and  if  any  one 
wishes  to  see  a  complete  refutation  of  it,  they  have  only  to  refer 
to  the  letter  from  Gen.  Lee  to  the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War, 
dated  September  9,  1863,  Eeb.  Eec.,  Series  L,  Vol.  XXIX.,  Part 
II.,  p.  723. 

As  to  the  civil  positions  of  honor  and  trust  of  which  this  writer 
says  one-half  were  rilled  by  Virginians,  and  that  Eichmond  thought 
"all  should  be  thus  filled."  If  he  means  by  this  to  charge  that 
Virginia  had  a  larger  number  of  men  exempted  from  military 
duty  to  fill  these  places  than  any  other  State  (as  would  have 
been  reasonable,  since  she  had  the  largest  number  in  the  field 
and  was  the  seat  of  the  capitol,  with  all  the  departments  of  the 
government),  then  the  report,  from  which  we  have  just  quoted, 
shows  that  in  this  he  is  greatly  mistaken.  This  report,  at  page 
103,  shows  that  the  "total  exempts"  in  Virginia  at  that  time  were 
twenty-five  thousand  and  sixty-three;  whilst  those  in  North  Caro 
lina  numbered  thirty-eight  thousand,  on  hundred  and  sixty-six. 
And  in  the  same  volume  in  which  this  report  is  to  be  found,  at 


150  Official  Reports  of  the 

page  851,  will  be  found  this  remarkable  exhibit,  under  the  head 
ing  "Number  of  State  Officers"  in  each  Southern  State  exempted 
on  certificates  of  their  Governors.  This  last  paper  shows  that 
while  the  number  of  these  officers  exempted  in  Virginia  was  one 
thousand,  four  hundred  and  twenty-two*,  the  number  exempted 
in  North  Carolina  was  fourteen  thousand  six  hundred  and  sev 
enty-five,  more  than  ten  times  as  many  as  in  any  other  Southern 
State. 

EFFECTS   OF  FIGHTING  OF  THE   "BETHEL  REGIMENT." 

Third.  A  third  claim  made  by  another  distinguished  North 
Carolina  writer  is  that  one  of  the  effects  of  the  fight  made  by  the 
"Bethel  Regiment"  at  Bethel  was  the  "possibly  holding  Virginia 
in  the  Confederacy."  (See  article  by  Maj.  Edward  J.  Hale, 
"North  Carolina  Eegiments,  '61  to  '65,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  123.) 

The  only  theory  on  which  we  can  account  for  this  uncalled-for 
suggestion  is,  that  the  writer  wished  to  attribute  to  this  regiment 
the  greatest  possible  achievement  the  fecundity  of  his  imagination 
could  conceive  of,  and  hence  this  "unkindest  cut  of  all'  at  our  old 
mother.  Virginia  joined  the  Confederacy  before  North  Carolina; 
and  we  will  show  later  on,  by  the  testimony  of  all  the  representa 
tives  of  all  the  Southern  States,  that  no  State  in  the  Confederacy 
showed  more  devotion  to  the  cause,  and  that  none  was  ready  to 
make  or  made  greater  sacrifices  in  its  behalf. 

NO  DESIRE  TO   MAGNIFY  WORK  OF  VIRGINIA. 

We  have  no  intention  or  desire  to  magnify  either  the  services 
rendered  by  Virginia  to  the  Confederacy  or  the  sufferings  and  sac 
rifices  of  her  people  for  the  Confederate  cause.  Indeed,  from 
what  we  know  of  these,  we  think  it  would  be  difficult  to  do  this. 
But  since  some  North  Carolina  writers  have  laid  so  much  stress 
on  the  part  performed  by  their  State  in  these  directions  (a  claim 
we  have  no  disposition  to  contest),  it  seems  to  us  both  pertinent 
and  proper  to  call  attention  to  two  things  which  apply  to  Vir 
ginia,  but  do  not  apply  to  North  Carolina  or  to  any  other  South 
ern  State.  These  are: 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  151 

VIRGINIA  A 

1.  Virginia  was  a  "battle  ground"  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  war.     No  people  who  have  not  had  this  experience  can 
form  any  conception  of  what  it  means,  and  this  was  literally  true 
of  Virginia  "from  her  mountains  to  her  seashore."     Every  day 
and  every  hour  for  four  long  years  the  tramp  or  the  camp,  the 
bivouac  or  the  battle  of  both  armies  were  upon  Virginia's  soil. 
Six  hundred  of  the  two  thousand  battles  fought  were  fought  in 
Virginia,   and  the   fenceless   fields,   the  houseless   chimneys,   the 
charred  ruins  and  the  myriad  graves  left  all  over  Virginia  at  the 
close  of  the  war  marked  and  measured  the  extent  to  which  her 
material  resources  had  contributed  to  that  struggle,  and  the  devo 
tion  of  her  people  to  the  Confederate  cause.     These  things  also 
showed  in  the  utter  desolation  produced  by  the  war,  and  in  the 
difficulties  and  disadvantages  the  State  and  her  people  have  labored 
under  ever  since. 

VIRGINIA  DISMEMBERED. 

2.  Virginia  was  the  only  Southern  State  dismembered  by  the 
war.     One-third  of  her  territory  (the  richest  in  many  respects) 
and  one-third  of  her  people  were  actually  torn  from  her  by  the 
mailed  hand  of  war  not  only  without  her  consent  but  contrary  to 
an  express  provision  of  the  Federal  Constitution.     The  true  his 
tory  of  this  "  political  rape/'  as  it  was  termed  by  Gen.  Wise,  is  one 
of  the  blackest  political  crimes  in  the  annals  of  history. 

OTHER  CLAIMS   MADE  BY   NORTH    CAROLINA. 

Fourth.  The  fourth  claim  or  claims  (and  the  last  to  which  we 
can  refer)  preferred  by  North  Carolina  are  set  forth  in  these  very 
striking  terms — viz. :  That  she  was 

First  at  Bethel;  Farthest  to  the  Front  at  Gettysburg  and 
ChicJcamauga;  Last  at  Appomattox." 

This  legend  in  this  form  is  inscribed  on  the  cover  of  each  of  the 
five  volumes  published  by  the  State,  entitled  "  North  Carolina 
Eegiments,  1861-65,"  to  be  thus  perpetuated  throughout  all  time. 


152  Official  Reports  of  the 

Of  course,  such  claims,  thus  asserted,  and  conveying  to  the 
world  what  these  necessarily  do,  should  be  above  and  beyond  all 
criticism  or  cavil.  Let  us  see  if  these  will  stand  this  test.  Before 
instituting  this  inquiry,  let  us  first  ask,  respectfully,  why  these 
claims  are  made  at  all.  The  learned  editor  of  the  volumes  to 
which  we  have  just  referred  disclaims  that  they  are  intended  as  a 
boost.  But  we  again  respectfully  ask:  Can  they  mean  anything 
else  than  that  North  Carolina  means  by  them  to  proclaim  the  fact 
that  the  troops  furnished  by  her  were  letter,  and  therefore  did  bet 
ter  at  the  important  points  named,  than  those  from  any  other 
State? 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  too,  that  our  friends  are  getting  more  aggres 
sive  in  their  claiming  with  the  passing  of  time.  The  first  form 
assumed  by  this  legend,  and  inscribed  on  the  Confederate  monu 
ment  at  Ealeigh,  was  only : 

"First  at  Bethel;  Last  at  Appomattox" 

We  next  hear  of  it  as  inscribed  on  her  memorial  room  in  Eich- 
mond  as : 

"  First  at  Bethel;  Farthest  to  the  Front  at  Gettysburg; 
Last  at  Appomattox" 

And  now  Chickamauga's  "bloody  front"  is  also  included.  One 
of  her  writers  has  already  claimed  that  "Chancellorsville"  was  a 
'  North  Carolina  fight/7  and  that  Gettysburg  ought  to  be  so  denomi 
nated,  too;  and  so  our  friends  go  on  claiming  from  step  to  step  just 
as  during  the  war. 

"  From  rank  to  rank  their  volleyed  thunders  flew." 

As  before  stated,  we  have  no  intention  or  desire  to  detract  one 
iota  from  the  fame  of  North  Carolina,  except  where  attempts  have 
been  made  to  augment  that  fame  at  the  expense  of  Virginia.  Keep 
ing  this  purpose  steadily  before  us,  we  now  propose  to  inquire 
whether  or  not  some  of  the  claims  set  up  by  North  Carolina  in  this 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  153 

legend  do  injustice  to  Virginia.     And  first  as  to  the  claim  that  she 
was  "  first  at  Bethel/' 


In  Volume  IV.  of  the  "  Confederate  Military  History/'  at  page 
19,  will  be  found  a  carefully  prepared  account  of  the  battle  at 
Bethel,  written  by  D.  H.  Hill,  Jr.,  son  of  the  intrepid  soldier  of 
that  name  who  commanded  the  First  North  Carolina  in  that  fight, 
and,  therefore,  one  with  every  natural  incentive  to  say  all  that 
could  be  said  truthfully,  both  on  behalf  of  his  father  and  his  regi 
ment.  He  says :  "  About  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  the  10th 
(June)  the  Federals  appeared  on  the  field  in  front  of  the  Southern 
works,  and  Greble's  battery  took  position.  A  shot  from  a  Parrott 
gun  in  the  Confederate  works  ushered  in  the  great  Civil  War  on  the 
land/' 

This  first  shot  was  fired  from  the  battery  of  the  Eichmond  (Va.) 
Howitzers,  which  had  already  fired  the  "first  shot"  fired  on  Vir 
ginia's  soil  nearly  a  month  before  at  Gloucester  Point.  We  are  not 
claiming,  however,  any  special  credit  for  having  fired  this  conceded 
first  shot,  the  firing  of  which  was  only  fortuitous.  But  Virginia 
was  at  Bethel,  along  with  North  Carolina,  not  only  represented  by 
the  commanding  general,  himself  a  Virginian,  but  by  all  three  arms 
of  the  service  (infantry,  artillery,  and  cavalry),  and  these  troops 
are  mentioned  by  the  commanding  general,  along  with  those  from 
North  Carolina,  not  only  in  his  report  of  the  battle  but  also,  and  in 
complimentary  terms,  in  the  report  of  Gen.  (then  Col.)  D.  H.  Hill, 
commanding  the  only  North  Carolina  troops  there.  Was  not  Vir 
ginia  at  Bethel,  then,  standing  side  by  side  with  North  Carolina? 
Did  she  not  do  her  duty  there  as  well  ?  If  she  did,  why  the  invidi 
ous  claim  that  North  Carolina  was  first  at  Bethel  ?  Is  this  just  to 
Virginia  ?  We  think  not,  in  all  kindness  and  courtesy.  Bethel  is 
in  Virginia,  and  to  claim  that  the  troops  of  any  other  State  were 
more  prompt  in  defending  her  soil  than  those  from  Virginia  neces 
sarily  reflects  on  Virginia. 


154  Official  Reports  of  the 

FARTHEST  AT  GETTYSBURG. 

As  TO  GETTYSBURG  :  We  were  there,  and  by  reason  of  our  position 
on  the  field,  we  saw  that  battle  as  we  never  saw  any  other.  We 
saw  the  charges  of  Pickett's,  PettigreVs,  and  Fender's  Divisions. 
We  saw  some  of  Pickett's  men  go  over  the  enemy's  works  and  into 
their  lines.  We  did  not  think  then,  and  do  not  think  now,  that 
Pettigrew's  and  Fender's  went  so  far,  and  we  know  this  was  the 
consensus  of  opinion  of  those  around  us  at  the  time. 

But  be  this  as  it  may,  the  world's  verdict  is  that  Pickett's  men 
went  as  far  as  men  could  go  and  did  all  that  men  could  do.  Mr. 
Charles  Francis  Adams  has  recently  written  of  them,  that  the 
vaunted  charge  of  Napoleon's  "Old  Guard"  at  Waterloo  did  not 
compare  with  that  of  Pickett's  men,  and  was  "  as  boys'  play  beside 
it." 

Gen.  John  B.  Gordon,  of  Georgia,  perhaps  the  most  distinguished 
Confederate  officer  now  living,  who  was  at  Gettysburg,  has  very 
recently  written  that  the  "  point  where  Pickett's  Virginians,  under 
Kemper,  Garnett,  and  Armistead,  in  their  immortal  charge  swept 
over  the  rock  wall,  has  been  appropriately  designated  by  the  govern 
ment  as  the  high-water  mark  of  the  rebellion."  And  we  believe  this 
will  be  the  verdict  of  history  for  all  time. 

Since  there  has  been  so  much  discussion  on  this  point,  and  some 
of  it,  we  think,  both  unfortunate  and  intemperate,  we  propose  to 
consider  this  claim  calmly  and  dispassionately,  not  from  what  we 
saw,  or  what  we  and  others  may  have  thought  at  the  time  of  the 
battle,  or  may  think  now,  but  from  the  official  reports  of  the  com 
manding  officers,  written  only  a  few  days  after  the  battle.  These 
reports  are  the  best  evidence,  and  must  and  will  be  accepted  as 
conclusive  of  what  then  occurred.  We  have  read  so  much  of  all  of 
these  reports,  Confederate  and  Federal,  as  we  could  find  published 
and  as  would  throw  light  on  this  question,  and  we  propose  to  make 
such  extracts  from  the  most  important  of  these  as  we  think  should 
settle  this  controversy  for  all  time.  It  is  proper  to  say  in  this 
connection  that  the  statements  contained  in  these  reports  were 
accepted  as  true  at  the  time,  and  remained  so  for  thirty  years. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  155 

History,  both,  at  the  North  and  at  the  South,  has  been  based  on 
them,  and  it  seems  to  us  remarkable  that  this  controversy  should 
have  arisen  so  long  after  the  happening  of  the  events  as  thus  estab 
lished.  But  the  controversy  has  now  arisen,  and  hence  the  necessity 
for  appealing  to  the  record  to  settle  it.  The  question  is,  Which 
troops  went  "farthest  to  the  front" —  i.  e.,  penetrated  the  enemy's 
works  farthest — on  the  3d  day  of  July,  1863,  at  Gettysburg  in  the 
famous  charge  of  that  day — Pickett's,  Pettigrew's,  or  Pender's? 
We  say  Pickett's ;  North  Carolinians  say  Pettigrew's. 

In  order  to  understand  the  situation  and  the  quotations  we  shall 
make  from  the  reports,  it  is  necessary  to  state  what  forces  consti 
tuted  the  "charging  column"  and  the  dispositions  and  allignments 
of  these  forces.  This  column  was  composed  of  Pickett's  Virginia 
Division  on  the  right  and  a  part  of  Heth's  Division  (commanded 
by  Pettigrew)  on  the  left,  with  a  part  of  Anderson's  Division  to 
guard  the  left  flank  of  Pettigrew,  and  Wilcox's  and  Perry's  Brigades 
of  Anderson's  Division  the  right  flank  of  Pickett.  Pickett's  Divi 
sion  was  called  the  "  directing  division,"  and  was  composed  of  Kem- 
pei-'s,  Garnett's,  and  Armistead's  Brigades — Kemper's  on  the  right, 
Garnett's  on  the  left,  supported  by  Armistead  in  the  rear  and  center. 
Pettigrew's  Division  was  composed  of  Archer's,  Pettigrew's,  Davis's, 
and  Brockenbrough's  Brigades,  supported  by  Scales's  and  Lane's 
Brigades  of  Pender's  Division,  then  commanded  by  Gen.  Trimble; 
Scales's  Brigade  (commanded  by  Col.  Lowrance)  being  in  rear  of 
Archer's  (commanded  by  Col.  Fry),  and  Lane's  being  on  the  left 
of  Scales,  supporting  Pettigrew's  Brigade  (then  commanded  by 
Col.  Marshall).  All  of  the  reports  refer  to  the  magnificent  way  in 
which  all  of  these  troops  advanced  to  the  charge,  and  we  shall  insti 
tute  no  comparison  between  them ;  they  were  all  gallant  and  glorious 
Confederate  soldiers,  and,  we  believe,  the  "best  the  world  ever 
saw,"  as  they  have  been  pronounced  by  the  present  Chief  Magistrate 
of  this  country. 

We  come  now  to  the  reports.  We  quote  first  from  that  of  Gen. 
Lee,  written  after  he  had  received  those  of  his  subordinates,  and 
based  upon  what  was  contained  in  them,  as  well  as  what  he  saw  on 
the  field;  and  his  position  on  the  field  was  such  that  he  could  see 


156  Official  Reports  of  the 

the  whole  movement  with  distinctness.  He  says  this  in  his  official 
report : 

"Gen.  Longstreet  ordered  forward  the  column  of  attack,  consist 
ing  of  Pickett's  and  Heth's  Divisions  in  two  lines,,  Pickett  on  the 
right.  Wilcox's  Brigade  marched  in  rear  of  Pickett's  right  to 
guard  that  flank,  and  Heth's  (commanded  by  Pettigrew)  was  sup 
ported  by  Lane's  and  Scales's  Brigades  under  Gen.  Trimble.  The 
troops  moved  steadily  on  under  a  heavy  fire  of  musketry  and  artil 
lery,  the  main  attack  being  directed  against  the  enemy's  left  center. 
His  batteries  opened  as  soon  as  they  appeared.  Our  own,  having 
nearly  exhausted  their  ammunition  in  the  protracted  cannonade 
that  preceded  the  advance  of  the  infantry,  were  unable  to  reply  or 
render  the  necessary  support  to  the  attacking  party.  Owing  to  this 
fact,  which  was  unknown  to  me  when  the  assault  took  place,  the 
enemy  was  enabled  to  throw  a  strong  force  of  infantry  against  our 
left,  already  wavering  [italics  ours]  under  a  concentrated  fire  of 
artillery  from  the  ridge  in  front  and  from  Cemetery  Hill  on  the  left. 
It  (the  left)  finally  gave  way,  and  the  right,  after  penetrating  the 
enemy's  lines,  entering  his  advance  works,  and  capturing  some  of 
his  artillery,  was  attacked  simultaneously  in  front  and  on  both 
flanks  and  driven  back  with  heavy  loss." 

We  have  only  to  remember  that  Pettigrew's  Division  was  on  the 
left  and  Pickett's  on  the  right  to  understand  clearly  what  Gen.  Lee 
here  says. 

We  next  quote  from  Gen.  Longstreet's  report,  who  was  standing 
not  very  far  from  Lee  and  saw  the  whole  movement.  He  says : 

"The  advance  was  made  in  very  handsome  style,  all  the  troops 
keeping  their  lines  accurately  and  taking  the  fire  of  the  batteries 
with  coolness  and  deliberation.  About  halfway  between  our  posi 
tion  and  that  of  the  enemy  a  ravine  partially  sheltered  our  troops 
from  the  enemy's  fire,  where  a  short  halt  was  made  for  rest.  The 
advance  was  resumed  after  a  moment's  pause,  all  still  in  good  order. 
The  enemy's  batteries  soon  opened  on  our  lines  with  canister,  and 
the  left  seemed  to  stagger  under  it,  but  the  advance  was  resumed 
and  with  the  same  degree  of  steadiness.  Pickett's  troops  did  not 
appear  to  be  checked  by  the  batteries,  and  only  halted  to  deliver  a 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  157 

fire  when  close  under  musket  range.  Maj.  Gen.  Anderson's  Divi 
sion  was  ordered  forward  to  support  and  assist  the  wavering 
columns  of  Pettigrew  and  Trimble.  Picket  fs  troops,  after  de 
livering  fire,  advanced  to  the  charge,  and  entered  the  enemy's 
lines,  capturing  some  of  his  batteries  and  gaining  his  works. 
About  the  same  moment,  the  troops  that  had  before  hesitated 
broke  their  ranks  and  fell  back  in  great  disorder  [italics  ours], 
many  more  falling  under  the  enemy's  fire  in  retiring  than  while 
they  were  attacking.  This  gave  the  enemy  time  to  throw  his  en 
tire  force  upon  Pickett  [italics  ours],  with  a  strong  prospect  of 
being  able  to  break  up  his  lines  or  destroy  him  before  Anderson's 
Division  could  reach  him,  which  would  in  its  turn  have  greatly 
exposed  Anderson.  He  was,  therefore,  ordered  to  halt.  In  a  few 
moments  the  enemy,  marching  against  both  flanks  and  the  front 
of  Pickett's  Division,  overpowered  and  drove  it  back,  capturing 
about  half  of  those  of  it  who  were  not  killed  or  wounded." 

Surely  comment  here  is  unnecessary,  and  no  one  who  has  read 
Longstreet's  book  will  accuse  him  of  partiality  to  Virginians. 

We  next  quote  from  the  report  of  that  gallant  soldier  and 
splendid  gentleman,  Gen.  James  H.  Lane,  who  was  at  first  in 
command  of  Fender's  Division,  but  having  been  relieved  of 
that  by  Gen.  Trimble,  then  commanded  his  own  North  Carolina 
Brigade.  He  says: 

"  Gen.  Longstreet  ordered  me  to  form  in  the  rear  of  the  right 
of  Heth's  Division,  commanded  by  Gen.  Pettigrew.  Soon  after  I 
had  executed  this  order,  putting  Lowrance  (commanding  Scales's 
Brigade)  on  the  right,  I  was  relieved  of  the  command  of  the  divi 
sion  by  Gen.  Trimble,  who  acted  under  the  same  orders  that  I  re 
ceived.  Heth's  Division  was  much  larger  than  Lowrance's  Brigade 
and  my  own,  which  were  its  only  support,  and  there  was  conse 
quently  no  second  line  in  rear  of  its  left.  Now  in  command  of 
my  own  brigade,  I  moved  forward  to  the  support  of  Pettigrew's 
right,  through  the  woods  in  which  our  batteries  were  planted,  and 
through  an  open  field  about  a  mile  in  full  view  of  the  enemy's 
fortified  position  and  under  a  murderous  artillery  and  infantry 


158  Official  Reports  of  the 

fire.  As  soon  as  Pettigrew's  command  gave  back  [italics  ours] 
Lowrance's  Brigade  and  my  own,  without  ever  having  halted, 
took  position  on  the  left  of  the  troops,  which  were  still  contest 
ing  the  ground  with  the  enemy  [italics  ours].  My  command 
never  moved  forward  more  handsomely.  The  men  reserved  their 
fire,  in  accordance  with  orders,  until  within  good  range  of  the 
enemy,  and  then  opened  with  telling  effect,  repeatedly  driving 
the  cannoneers  from  their  pieces,  completely  silencing  the  guns 
in  our  immediate  front,  and  breaking  the  line  of  infantry  which 
was  formed  on  the  crest  of  the  hill.  We  advanced  to  within  a 
few  yards  of  the  stone  wall  [italics  ours],  exposed  all  the  while  to 
a  raking  artillery  fire  from  the  right.  My  left  was  here  very 
much  exposed,  and  a  column  of  the  enemy's  infantry  was  thrown 
forward  from  that  direction,  which  enfiladed  my  whole  line. 
This  forced  me  to  withdraw  my  brigade,  the  troops  on  my  right 
having  already  done  so." 

The  troops  directly  on  Lane's  right  were  those  of  Lowrance. 
But  if  he  refers  to  Piekett's  too,  then  he  does  not  pretend  that  his 
own  men  entered  the  enemy's  works,  as  Pickett's  did,  which,  as 
we  shall  see,  is  the  real  point  at  issue. 

Scarcely  a  more  striking  illustration  of  the  frailty  of  human 
memory  or  the  unsatisfactory  nature  of  the  post-bellum  state 
ments  relied  on  entirely,  it  would  seem,  by  the  advocates  of  North 
Carolina's  claim,  can  be  found  than  by  contrasting  Gen.  Lane's 
report  with  what  is  said  by  Capt.  Louis  G.  Young  (now  of  Savan 
nah,  Ga.,  a  gallant  and  gifted  Confederate  who  was  in  the  charge  as 
an  aide  on  Gen.  Pettigrew's  staff).  In  an  address  recently  deliv 
ered  by  him  on  Gettysburg,  a  copy  of  which  he  has  kindly  sent  us 
Capt.  Young  says: 

"Gen.  Trimble  and  his  brigade  (division)  were  not,  and  had 
not  been,  in  supporting  distance.  They  also  must  have  been  de 
layed,  as  was  Davis's  Brigade,  in  the  woods  on  Seminary  Eidge. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  they  were  too  late  to  give  any  assistance  to  the 
assaulting  column.  When  I  delivered  my  message  I  knew  it  was 
too  late,  and  I  recall  my  sad  reflection,  'What  a  pity  that  these 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  159 

brave  men  should  be  sacrificed!'  Already  had  the  remnant  of 
Pickett's  and  Heth's  Divisions  broken.  They  broke  simulta 
neously.  They  had  together  struck  the  stone  fence,  driven  back 
the  enemy  posted  behind  it,  looked  down  on  the  multitude  beyond, 
and,  in  the  words  of  Gen.  McLaws,  who  was  watching  the  attack, 
'rebounded  like  an  India  rubber  ball.'  The  lodgment  effected 
was  only  for  an  instant.  Not  twenty  minutes  elapsed,  as  claimed 
by  some,  before  the  handful  of  braves  was  driven  back  by  over 
whelming  numbers.  Then  Trimble's  command  should  have  been 
ordered  to  the  rear.  It  continued  its  useless  advance  alone,  only 
to  return  before  it  had  gone  as  far  as  we  had" 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  statement  is  (unintentionally,  we  know) 
not  only  at  variance  with  the  report  of  Gen.  Lane,  but  also  with 
those  of  Gens.  Lee,  and  Longstreet,  both  of  whom  confirm  Gen. 
Lane  in  the  statement  that  Pettigrew's  men  gave  way  before  those 
of  PicJcett  did. 

But  let  us  quote  again  from  the  official  reports,  and  this  time 
from  that  of  Col.  Lowrance,  who,  it  will  be  remembered,  com 
manded  Scales's  North  Carolina  Brigade,  which  was  supporting 
Pettigrew.  He  says : 

"  We  advanced  upon  the  enemy's  line,  which  was  in  full  view  at 
a  distance  of  a  mile.  Now  their  whole  line  of  artillery,  which  was 
on  an  eminence  in  front  strongly  fortified  and  supported  by  in 
fantry,  was  playing  upon  us."  .  .  .  "All  went  forward  with  a  cool 
and  steady  step;  but  ere  we  had  advanced  over  two-thirds  of  the 
way  troops  from  the  front  came  tearing  through  our  ranks  [italics 
ours],  which  caused  many  of  our  men  to  break,  but  with  the  remain 
ing  few  we  went  forward  until  the  right  of  the  brigade  touched 
the  enemy's  line  of  breastworks,  as  we  marched  in  rather  an  oblique 
line.  Now  the  pieces  in  our  front  were  silenced.  Here  many  were 
shot  down,  being  then  exposed  to  a  heavy  fire  of  grape  and  musketry 
upon  our  right  flank.  Now  all,  apparently,  had  forsaken  us." 

Now  the  troops  in  front  of  Lowrance  were  those  of  Pettigrew, 
and  he  says  they  gave  way  a  third  of  a  mile  before  they  got  to  the 
enemy's  works.  But  be  this  at  it  may,  he  nowhere  says  that  any 
of  his  men  entered  the  enemy's  works;  and  none  of  the  reports  that 


160  Official  Reports  of  the 

we  have  seen  say  that  any  North  Carolina  troops  did  this,  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  the  real  point  at  issue.  We  have  already  shown, 
and  will  do  so  more  conclusively  later,  that  Pickett's  men  or  some 
of  them,  certainly  did  this.  The  report  of  Maj.  Joseph  A.  Engle- 
hard,  assistant  adjutant  general  of  Fender's  Division,  then  com 
manded  by  Trimble,  is  substantially  to  the  same  effect  as  those  of 
Gen.  Lane  and  Col.  Lowrance,  and  for  that  reason  we  do  not  quote 
what  he  says.  That  of  Col.  Shepard,  of  Archer's  Brigade,  after 
describing  the  charge,  and  saying  our  lines,  both  right  and  left, 
gave  way,  says : 

"Archer's  Brigade  remained  at  the  works  fighting  as  long  as 
any  other  troops,  either  on  their  right  or  left,  so  far  as  I  could  ob 
serve.  Every  flag  in  the  brigade,  excepting  one,  was  captured  at 
or  within  the  works  of  the  enemy."  (Italics  ours.) 

This  is  the  only  official  statement  we  have  found  which  claimed 
that  any  other  troops  than  those  of  Pickett  entered  the  enemy's 
works.  But  since  Archer's  Brigade,  which,  Gen.  Heth  says,  were 
the  "  heroes  of  Chancellorsville,"  was  composed  entirely  of  Ten- 
nesseeans  and  Alabamians,  we  hardly  think  our  North  Carolina 
friends  can  mean  their  claim  to  be  mistaken  for  what  the  men  of 
this  brigade  did. 

The  report  of  Maj.  J.  Jones,  of  the  Twenty-sixth  North  Caro 
lina,  who  commanded  Pettigrew's  Brigade  after  Col.  Marshall 
was  wounded,  says: 

"When  within  about  250  or  300  yards  of  the  stone  wall,  be 
hind  which  the  enemy  was  posted,  we  were  met  with  a  perfect 
hailstorm  of  lead  from  their  small  arms.  The  brigade  dashed  on, 
and  many  had  reached  the  wall,  when  we  received  a  deadly  volley 
from  the  left.  The  whole  line  on  the  left  had  given  way,  and  we 
were  being  rapidly  flanked.  With  our  thinned  ranks  and  in  such 
a  position  it  would  have  been  folly  to  stand,  and  against  such 
odds.  We,  therefore,  fell  back  to  our  original  position  in  rear  of 
the  batteries." 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  officer  does  not  claim  that  any  of  his 
men  entered  the  works  or  that  the  troops  on  his  right  (Pickett's 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  161 

and  Archer's)  gave  way  first;  but  those  on  his  left,  the  other  two 
brigades  of  Pettigrew's  Division.  The  reports  of  Gen'ls.  A.  P. 
Hill,  Heth,  and  Davis  throw  no  light  on  the  question,  and  we 
have  been  unable  to  find  any  from  Gen.  Pickett  or  from  any  officer 
of  his  division,  except  that  of  Maj.  Charles  S.  Peyton,  of  Garnett's 
Brigade,  which  would  throw  any  further  light  on  this  question. 
Maj.  Peyton  says  this : 

"  Our  line,  much  shattered,  still  kept  up  the  advance  until 
within  about  twenty  paces  of  the  wall,  when  for  a  moment  it  re 
coiled  under  the  terrific  fire  that  poured  into  our  ranks  both  from 
their  batteries  and  from  their  sheltered  infantry.  At  this 
moment  Gen.  Kemper  came  up  on  the  right  and  Gen.  Armistead 
in  rear,  when  the  three  lines,  joining  in  concert,  rushed  forward 
with  unyielding  determination  and  an  apparent  spirit  of  laudable 
rivalry  to  plant  the  Southern  banner  on  the  walls  of  the  enemy. 
His  strongest  and  last  line  was  instantly  gained;  the  Confederate 
battle  flag  waved  over  his  defenses,  and  the  fighting  over  the  wall 
became  hand-to-hand  and  of  the  most  desperate  character;  but, 
more  than  half  having  already  fallen,  our  line  was  found  too  weak 
to  rout  the  enemy.  We  hoped  for  a  support  on  the  left  (which 
had  started  simultaneously  with  ourselves),  ~but  hoped  in  vain. 
[Italics  ours.]  Yet  a  small  remnant  remained  in  desperate 
struggle,  receiving  a  fire  in  front,  on  the  right,  and  on  the  left, 
many  even  climbing  over  the  wall  and  fighting  the  enemy  in  his 
own  trenches  until  entirely  surrounded;  and  those  who  were  not 
killed  or  wounded  were  Captured,  'with  the  exception  of  about  300 
who  came  off  slowly,  but  greatly  scattered,  the  identity  of  every 
regiment  being  entirely  lost  and  every  regimental  commander 
killed  or  wounded." 

Col.  Walter  H.  Taylor,  of  Gen.  Lee's  staff,  who  was  on  the  field 
standing  by  Gen.  Lee  and  saw  the  movement,  says : 

"  It  is  needless  to  say  a  word  here  of  the  heroic  conduct  of 

Pickett's  Division.     That  charge  has  already  passed  into  history 

as   'one   of   the   world's   great   deeds   of   arms.'     While   doubtless 

many  brave   men   of   other  commands   reached   the   crest   of  the 

10 


162  Official  Reports  of  the 

height,,  this  was  the  only  organized  body  which  entered  the  works 
of  the  enemy." 

Gen.  Long,  who  was  also  on  Gen.  Lee's  staff,  after  describing 
the  order  in  which  the  charge  was  made,  says : 

"  But  the  tempest  of  fire  which  burst  upon  the  devoted  column 
quickly  reduced  its  strength.  The  troops  of  Heth's  Division 
(Pettigrew's),  decimated  by  the  storm  of  deadly  hail  which  tore 
through  their  ranks,  faltered  and  fell  back  in  disorder  before  the 
withering  volleys  of  the  Federal  musketry.  This  compelled  Fen 
der's  (Trimble's)  Division,  which  had  marched  out  to  support 
the  movement,  to  fall  back,  while  Wilcox,  on  perceiving  that  the 
attack  had  grown  hopeless,  failed  to  advance,  leaving  Pickett's 
men  to  continue  the  charge  alone.  The  other  supports,  Hood's 
and  McLaw's  Divisions,  which  had  been  expected  to  advance  in 
support  of  the  charging  column,  did  not  move,  and  were  too  re 
mote  to  offer  any  assistance.  The  consequence  was  that  Pickett 
was  left  entirely  unsupported. 

"  Yet  the  gallant  Virginians  marched  steadily  forward  through 
the  storm  of  shot  and  shell  that  burst  upon  their  devoted  ranks 
with  a  gallantry  that  has  never  been  surpassed.  As  they  ap 
proached  the  ridge  their  lines  were  torn  by  incessant  volleys  of 
musketry  as  by  a  deadly  hail.  Yet,  with  unfaltering  courage, 
the  brave  fellows  broke  into  the  double-quick,  and  with  an  irre 
sistible  charge  burst  into  the  Federal  lines  and  drove  everything 
before  them  toward  the  crest  of  Cemetery  Hill,  leaping  the  breast 
works  and  planting  their  standards  on  the  captured  guns  with 
shouts  of  victory." 

Whilst  nearly  all  of  the  Federal  reports  which  refer  to  this 
charge  do  so  in  almost  as  enthusiastic  terms  as  the  Confederate, 
yet  only  two  or  three  of  them  designate  by  name  the  troops  who 
were  in  advance  and  who  actually  entered  their  works.  These 
few,  however,  leave  no  doubt  on  this  point.  Gen.  Hancock  says : 

"  When  the  enemy's  line  had  nearly  reached  the  stone  wall,  led 
~by  Gen.  Armistead"  [italics  ours],  etc. 

Gen.  Webb,  who  commanded  the  brigade  immediately  in  front 
of  Pickett,  says: 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  163 

"  The  enemy  advanced  steadily  to  the  fence,  driving  out  a  por 
tion  of  the  Seventy-first  Pennsylvania  Volunteers.  Gen.  Armis- 
tead  passed  over  the  fence  with  probably  over  a  hundred  of  his 
command  [italics  ours]  and  with  several  battle  flags/'  etc. 

Gen.  Henry  J.  Hunt,  who  commanded  the  Federal  artillery, 
says: 

"  The  enemy  advanced  magnificently,  unshaken  by  the  shot  and 
shell  which  tore  through  his  ranks  from  the  front  and  from  our 
left.  .  .  .  When  our  canister  fire  and  musketry  were  opened  upon 
them  it  occasioned  disorder,  but  still  they  advanced  gallantly  until 
they  reached  the  stone  wall,  behind  which  our  troops  lay.  Here 
ensued  a  desperate  conflict,  the  enemy  succeeding  in  passing  the 
wall  and  entering  our  lines  [italics  ours],  causing  great  destruc 
tion  of  life,  especially  among  the  batteries." 

The  other  reports  show  what  "  enemy  "  is  here  meant.  It  will 
thus  be  seen  that  every  one  of  the  official  reports,  both  Federal 
and  Confederate  (with  the  exception  of  that  of  Col.  Shepard,  of 
Archer's  Brigade,  not  composed  of  Carolinians),  which  refer  to 
the  troops  who  entered  the  enemy's  works,  point  unmistakably  to 
those  of  Pickett's  Virginians.  This  is  the  positive  testimony  on 
this  point,  and  the  negative  is  almost  as  strong;  which  is  that 
none  of  the  official  reports  from  the  officers  commanding  the 
North  Carolina  troops  make  any  such  claim  for  their  troops — a 
claim  that  would  certainly  have  been  made  if  the  facts  had  war 
ranted  it.  Not  only  is  this  true,  but  Gen.  Lane,  in  his  letter  pub 
lished  long  after  the  war  in  the  "  Southern  Historical  Society 
papers/'  whilst  complaining  (and,  perhaps,  justly)  of  the  little 
credit  given  the  North  Carolina  troops  for  their  conduct  in  this 
charge,  makes  no  such  claim  for  them.  Indeed,  Capt.  S.  A.  Ashe, 
of  North  Carolina,  late  adjutant  general  of  Fender's  Division, 
who  was  in  the  charge,  in  his  address  published  in  Volume  V.  of 
"  North  Carolina  Regiments,  '61-'65,"  whilst  claiming  at  the  close 
that  North  Carolina  troops  "advanced  the  farthest  and  remained 
the  longest,"  says  at  page  152 : 

"Some  of  Pettigrew's  North  Carolinians  advanced  to  the  wall 


164  Official  Reports  of  the 

[italics  ours],  doing  all  that  splendid  valor  and  heroic  endurance 
could  do  to  dislodge  the  enemy,  but  their  heroism  was  in  vain/' 

And  only  a  very  few  of  the  many  post-bellum  witnesses  quoted 
from  by  Capt.  Ashe  claim  any  more  than  the  official  reports  show. 
As  to  the  value  of  these  post-bellum  statements,  as  compared  with 
the  "  official  reports  "  prepared  at  the  time,  we  cannot  do  better 
than  to  quote  from  what  Gen.  Lane  said  in  the  article  in  the 
Southern  Historical  Society  papers  before  referred  to.  He  says, 
speaking  of  his  own  report  of  the  battle  of  Gettysburg: 

"  I  am  sure  the  public  will  consider  this  official  paper,  written 
about  a  month  after  the  battle,  a  more  valuable  historical  docu 
ment  than  the  many  recent  articles  written  from  memory,  which 
is  at  all  times  treacherous,  and  as  every  Confederate  soldier  knows, 
particularly  so  as  regards  the  incidents,  etc.,  of  our  heroic  strug 
gle  for  independence." 

He  then  goes  on  to  give  instances  of  the  unreliability  of  these 
writings  from  memory. 

We  have  heretofore  said  we  could  find  no  official  report  of  this 
battle  from  Gen.  Pickett.  The  following  letter  explains  why  this 
report  was  not  published.  It  will  be  found  in  Series  1,  Volume 
XXVII.,  Part  III.,  page  1075,  "  Reb.  Rec.,"  and  is  as  follows : 

"  GEN.  GEORGE  E.  PICKETT,  COMMANDING,  ETC. 

"General: — You  and  your  men  have  crowned  yourselves  with 
glory;  but  we  have  the  enemy  to  fight,  and  must  carefully,  at  this 
critical  moment,  guard  against  dissensions  which  the  reflections 
in  your  report  would  create.  I  will,  therefore,  suggest  that  you 
destroy  both  copy  and  original,  substituting  one  confined  to 
casualties  merely.  I  hope  all  will  yet  be  well. 

"  I  am,  with  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

"R.  E.  LEE,  General/' 

We  make  no  comment  on  this  letter,  and  when  read  in  the  light 
of  the  official  reports,  it  would  seem  to  need  none. 

We  do  not  intend  to  be  misunderstood.  We  have  not  done  so 
and  do  not  intend  to  reflect  in  any  way  on  any  of  the  North  Caro- 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  165 

lina  troops.  On  the  contrary,,  we  think,  considering  the  fact  that 
they  were  engaged  and  sustained  heavy  losses  in  the  first  day's 
battle,  and  were  thus  deprived  of  many  of  their  brigade,  regi 
mental,  and  company  officers  they  behaved  with  signal  gallantry, 
But  our  contention  and  our  only  point  is:  that  the  present  claim 
set  up  by  North  Carolina  that  her  troops  were  "  farthest  to  the 
front "  at  Gettysburg  is  not  sustained  by  the  record. 

We  have  recently  learned  that  our  friends  from  North  Carolina 
do  not  now  claim  that  their  men  entered  the  enemy's  works,  as 
some  of  Pickett's  did.  Yet  they  say  that  inasmuch  as  at  the  point 
where  Pickett's  men  struck  these  works  they  were  farther  ad 
vanced  to  the  front  than  where  Pettigrew's  men  struck  them,  and 
as  "Capt.  Satterfield  and  other  North  Carolinians  of  the  Fifty- 
fifth  North  Carolina  fell  within  nine  yards  of  that  wall.  This 
settles  (it)  that  the  men  from  this  State  (North  Carolina)  fairly 
earned  the  title  "  Farthest  at  Gettysburg."  (Note  by  the  editor, 
"North  Carolina  Eegiments,  '61-'65,"  Vol.  V.,  p.  101.) 

We  remark  in  the  first  place  that  the  Fifty-fifth  North  Caro 
lina  was  in  Davis's  Brigade,  the  farthest  brigade  to  the  left  (save 
one)  in  the  "  charging  column,"  and  being  without  any  support, 
as  explained  by  Gen.  Lane,  we  thought  it  was  conceded  that  this 
brigade  and  Brockenbrough's  were  the  first  troops  to  give  way. 

But  surely  our  friends  are  not  basing  their  claim  on  any  such 
narrow  and  technical  ground  as  is  here  intimated,  and  as  surely 
this  is  not  the  meaning  they  intended  to  convey  by  this  claim. 
We  might  as  well  claim  that  the  picket  on  the  flank  of  Meade's 
army  or  captured  within  his  lines  was  ''  farthest  to  the  front." 
Every  soldier  knows  that  the  "  front "  of  an  army  is  wherever  its 
line  of  battle  is  (whether  that  line  is  zigzag  or  straight),  and  the 
opposing  troops  which  penetrate  that  line  are  farther  to  the  front 
than  those  which  do  not. 

We  have  shown,  we  think,  conclusively  that  the  Virginians 
under  PicJcett  did  penetrate  the  enemy's  line  on  the  3rd  of  July, 
'63,  in  the  famous  charge  at  Gettysburg,  and  that  the  North  Caro 
linians,  under  Pettigrew  and  Trimble,  did  not. 


166  Official  Reports  of  the 

Another  ground  on  which,  we  understand,  North  Carolina  bases 
this  claim  is  that  her  losses  in  this  battle  were  greater  than  those 
of  Pickett.  All  the  statistics  of  losses  we  have  seen  of  the  battle 
of  Gettysburg  include  those  in  the  different  commands  in  all  three 
days  combined.  Since,  therefore,  Pettigrew's  and  Trimble's  men 
were  engaged  in  the  battles  of  the  first  day,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
third,  and  as  Pickett's  were  only  engaged  on  the  third  day,  of 
course  the  losses  of  the  first  two  divisions  in  the  two  days'  battles 
were  greater  than  those  of  the  last  named  in  the  one  day's  battle. 

If  our  friends  from  North  Carolina  would  adopt  the  language 
of  her  gallant  son  Capt.  Ashe,  from  whom  we  have  already  quoted, 
and  say  of  Gettysburg: 

"  It  was,  indeed,  a  field  of  honor  as  well  as  a  field  of  blood,  and 
the  sister  States  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  have  equal  cause 
to  weave  chaplets  of  laurel  and  cypress  there,"  no  one  in  Virginia 
would  have  just  cause  of  complaint  and  certainly  none  would  ever 
have  come  from  this  committee  on  this  point.  But  when  her  claim 
is  set  forth  in  the  invidious  (and,  we  think,  unjust)  form  it  is,  we 
think  it  not  only  our  right  ~but  our  duty  to  appeal  to  the  record,  and 
to  set  Virginia  right  from  that  record,  and  ih,i$  *•*  all  we  have  tried 
to  do. 

AS    TO    CHICKAMAUGA. 

As  TO  CHICKAMAUGA  :  We  have  already  protracted  this  report 
too  far  to  warrant  us  in  investigating  the  ground  on  which  this 
claim  is  based  by  North  Carolina.  Virginia  was  at  Chickamauga, 
too,  along  with  North  Carolina.  We  have  always  understood  that 
these  Virginia  troops  did  their  duty  on  this  field  as  well  as  those 
from  any  other  State.  This  is  all  we  claim,  and  all  that  was 
claimed  for  North  Carolina  until  very  recently.  We  can  only  re 
mark  as  to  this  belated  claim  that  we  have  read  the  full  and  de 
tailed  report  of  this  great  battle,  written  by  the  commanding 
general,  a  native  of  North  Carolina,  and  in  it  he  nowhere  refers 
to  any  specially  meritorious  services  rendered  by  the  few  North 
Carolina  troops  there. 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  167 

AS   TO    APPOMATTOX. 

As  TO  APPOMATTOX:  The  writer  had  been  permanently  dis 
abled  by  wounds  before  Appomattox,  and,  therefore,  cannot  speak 
personally  of  what  occurred  there,  and  there  are  no  official  reports 
to  appeal  to.  From  what  we  have  heard  of  the  surroundings 
there — the  scattered  condition  of  the  different  commands,  the  de 
sultory  firing,  and  the  confusion  incident  to  that  event — we 
should  think  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  prove  with  any  de 
gree  of  certainty  what  troops  were  really  entitled  to  the  honor 
claimed  there  by  North  Carolina. 

We  do  know,  however,  that  this  honor  is  claimed  by  troops 
from  several  of  the  Southern  States;  and  we  have  heard  it  asserted 
with  great  plausibility  that  the  last  fighting  was  done  by  troops 
from  Virginia.  We  cannot  prolong  this  report  to  discuss  the 
merits  of  these  several  claims,  a  discussion  which  would,  in  our 
opinion,  be  both  fruitless  and  unsatisfactory. 

ENOUGH   GLORY   FOR  ALL  TO   HAVE  A   SHARE. 

In  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia  nearly  every  Southern  State 
was  represented.  The  Confederate  Secretary  of  War  says  of  that 
army  in  his  report  of  November  3,  1864,  that  it  was  one  "  in 
which  every  virtue  of  an  army  and  the  genius  of  consummate 
generalship  had  been  displayed."  And  this,,  we  believe,  is  the 
world's  verdict.  Is  not  this  glory  enough  to  give  us  all  a  share? 
Let  us  then  not  be  envious  and  jealous  of  each  other  where  all  did 
their  part  so  well. 


Virginia  makes  no  boast  of  the  part  borne  by  her  in  that,  the 
greatest  crisis  of  her  history.  She  only  claims  that  she  did 
her  duty  to  the  lest  of  her  ability.  She  has,  therefore,  no  apolo 
gies  to  make  either  for  what  she  did  or  may  have  failed  to  do. 
It  is  true  that  she  was  somewhat  reluctant  to  join  the  Con 
federacy,  not  because  she  had  any  doubt  of  the  right  of  secession 
or  of  the  justice  of  the  Confederate  cause,  but  only  because  of  her 


168  Official  Reports  of  the 

devotion  to  the  Union  of  our  fathers  which  she  had  done  so  much 
to  form  and  to  maintain  from  its  foundation.  But  when  she  did 
cast  her  lot  with  her  Southern  sisters,  she  bore  her  part  with  a 
courage  and  devotion  never  surpassed;  and  the  record  shows  this 
in  no  uncertain  way.  In  the  address  issued  and  signed  by  every 
member  of  the  Confederate  Congress  in  February,  1864,  not  writ 
ten  by  a  Virginian,  she  is  thus  referred  to : 

"  In  Virginia  the  model  of  all  that  illustrates  human  heroism 
and  self-denying  patriotism,  although  the  tempest  of  desolation 
has  swept  over  her  fair  domain,  no  sign  of  repentance  for  her 
separation  from  the  North  can  be  found.  Her  old  homesteads 
dismantled;  her  ancestral  relics  destroyed;  her  people  impover 
ished;  her  territory  made  the  battle  ground  for  the  rude  shocks 
of  contending  hosts,  and  then  divided  with  hireling  parasites, 
mockingly  claiming  jurisdiction  and  authority,  the  Old  Dominion 
still  stands  with  proud  crest  and  defiant  mien  ready  to  trample 
beneath  her  heel  every  usurper  and  tyrant,  and  to  illustrate  afresh 
her  Sic  Semper  Tyrannis,  the  proudest  motto  that  ever  blazed  on 
a  nation's  shield  or  a  warrior's  arms." 

On  such  testimony  as  this  Virginia  can  safely  rest  her  title  to 
share  equally  with  her  Southern  sisters  in  the  "  wealth  of  glory  " 
produced  by  the  war,  and  this  equality  is  all  she  asks  or  would 
have.  She  disdains  to  pluck  one  laurel  from  a  sister's  brow. 

SCHOOL  BOOKS. 

We  have  but  little  to  add,  since  our  last  report,  about  the  books 
used  in  our  schools,  as  there  has  been  no  change  in  these  so  far 
as  we  know.  We  have  received  from  the  publishers,  the  American 
Book  Company,  a  copy  of  the  "  School  History  of  the  United 
States,"  by  Philip  A.  Bruce,  Esq.  This  work  is  well-written, 
accurate  in  its  statements,  as  far  as  we  are  capable  of  judging, 
well  gotten  up  by  the  publishers,  and  is  a  very  good  school  history. 
Mr.  Bruce  is  a  Virginian,  and  his  book  is  therefore  written  from 
a  Southern  point  of  view.  But  we  think  he  fails  to  state  the 
South's  position,  in  reference  to  the  late  war,  as  strongly  as  it  can 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  169 

or  should  be  stated  to  our  children — e.  g.,  at  Section  418,  he  says, 
"  The  Southern  people  maintained  that  the  Constitution  was  sim 
ply  a  compact  or  agreement  between  sovereign  and  independent 
States,"  etc.,  without  saying  whether  they  were  right  or  wrong  in 
so  maintaining.  Again,  at  Section  419,  he  says,  "  The  South 
thought,"  etc.  We  think  we  know  what  the  opinions  of  the  author 
are  on  these  important  questions,  and  that  our  children  should 
have  the  benefit  of  these  opinions,  wherever  they  are  based  on  such 
well-ascertained  facts  as  are  here  referred  to. 


The  volumes  with  this  title  have  been  brought  to  our  attention 
by  Capt.  Carter  E.  Bishop,  of  Petersburg,  a  member  of  the  com 
mittee  ;  and  at  our  request  he  has  prepared  the  following,  it  would 
seem,  well-merited  criticism,  which  we  respectfully  commend  to 
the  serious  consideration  of  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  State. 

Capt.  Bishop's  paper  is  as  follows : 

"  This  committee  has  hitherto  confined  its  attention  entirely  to 
matters  of  history  proper;  but  the  lamented  Dr.  Hunter  McGuire, 
in  outlining  our  work,  included  among  the  subjects  of  our  criti 
cism  such  text-books  of  our  schools  as  failed  to  do  justice  to  the 
South. 

""We  have  recently  examined,  critically,  the  series  of  readers  in 
most  common  use,  and  find  them  far  from  what  they  should  be. 
An  intelligent  child  soon  learns  that  authors  may  dogmatize  in 
the  statement  of  facts  about  which  there  may  be  a  difference  of 
opinion.  This  puts  him  on  his  guard,  and  he  accepts  the  teach 
ings  in  his  history  as  truths  subject  to  such  future  corrections  as 
may  be  justified  by  a  wider  knowledge  of  the  matter. 

"But  the  most  ineradicable  opinions  are  those  formed  by  in 
ference,  without  assertions  or  contradiction,  during  the  formative 
period  of  a  child's  mind.  The  error  thus  implanted  is  never  sus 
pected  till  it  is  unalterably  fixed.  There  are  poisons  whose  only 
manifestation  is  the  inexplicable  death  of  the  victim.  An  anti 
dote  would  have  saved  him,  but  its  need  was  not  indicated  till 
death  made  it  useless. 


170  Official  Reports  of  the 

"  Did  the  South,  during  the  last  century  and  a  half,  have  no 
orators,  poets,  nor  writers,  whose  works  might  be  of  service  in  the 
literary  development  of  the  child?  Were  the  Southerners  so 
enervated  by  the  luxury  of  slavery  as  to  produce  nothing  worthy 
of  a  place  among  the  selections  from  the  best  writers  and  speakers 
of  the  language?  The  average  child  using  the  'Stepping-Stones 
to  Literature'  would  be  forced  so  to  conclude.  For,  mark  you, 
this  series  of  readers  consists  of  seven  grades;  the  majority  of 
children  in  our  schools  never  reach  the  last  or  the  seventh,  and  in 
this  one  only  is  there  a  word  from  a  Southern  lip  or  pen.  The 
selections  were  made,  or  approved,  by  a  Boston  lady,  naturally, 
from  the  literature  with  which  she  was  most  familiar.  The  New 
England  school  of  authors  is  fully  represented,  and  biographical 
notes  make  sure  that  the  child  shall  know  the  section  to  which 
they  belong  and  the  loving  reverence  in  which  they  are  held.  But 
the  information  of  this  kind  about  the  Southern  authors  is  marked 
in  its  meagerness.  Its  extent  is  as  follows:  Patrick  Henry  'lived 
in  Virginia  during  the  Eevolutionary  War;'  Mrs.  Preston  'was 
born  in  Philadelphia  and  lived  in  Lexington,  Ya. ;'  'Gen.  Gordon 
was  a  Confederate  officer;'  and  'Sidney  Lanier  was  a  Southern 
poet.'  For  the  man  who  does  not  want  his  child  to  know  more 
than  this  of  the  home  and  nativity  of  Southern  authors,  these 
books  are  good  enough.  But  if  there  is  such  a  man  in  our  land, 
his  only  plea  for  such  a  wish  would  have  to  be  his  own  unbounded 
ignorance. 

"  The  South  has  produced  orators  whose  impetuous  eloquence 
has  made  men  rush  with  a  glad  cheer  into  the  very  jaws  of  death ; 
statesmen  whose  wise  counsel  has  restrained  the  fierce  heat  of  a 
hot-blooded  people;  preachers  whose  words  have  convinced  the 
sinner,  cheered  the  saint,  and  comforted  the  bereaved;  writers 
whose  sentiments  have  placed  the  wreath  of  undying  glory  on  the 
tomb  of  heroes,  and  inspired  a  people  of  desolated  homes  to  re 
habilitate  their  land  made  sacred  by  the  graves  of  such  heroes; 
poets  whose  graceful  fancy  has  gilded  the  mountain  tops  with  the 
lights  of  other  days  and  caused  those  in  the  gloom  of  despair  to 


History  Committee,  Grand  Camp,  C.  V.  171 

look  up  and  resolve  to  lead  lives  worthy  of  such  hallowed  associa 
tions. 

"  Must  the  children  of  the  South  grow  up  in  ignorance  of  these 
authors?  Such  is  the  unconscious  intent  of  our  Board  of  Public 
Education,  as  evinced  by  their  adoption  of  these  readers  for  our 
schools. 

"  The  seventy-eighth  Psalm  contains  a  long  catalogue  of  God's 
dealings  with  his  chosen  people.  It  was  appointed  to  be  sung  in 
the  temple  service.  Was  it  that  the  elders  might  warm  their 
hearts  afresh  and  restrain  their  evil  inclinations  as  they  recited 
again  and  again  God's  mercies  and  his  wrath?  Possibly  this  was 
one  result  of  its  use,  but  that  it  was  not  its  main  object  we  learn 
from  the  introduction  to  this  Psalm  of  instruction  where  we  read : 
'For  he  established  a  testimony  in  Jacob  and  appointed  a  law  in 
Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers  that  they  should  make 
them  known  to  their  children;  that  the  generation  to  come  might 
know  them,  even  the  children  which  should  be  born;  who  should 
arise  and  declare  them  to  their  children.'  There  you  have  it. 
The  divine  plan  was  to  lodge  that  which  we  wish  to  remain  in  the 
mind  of  the  child.  Can  we  improve  upon  His  plan? 

"  If  we  wish  the  authors  so  dear  to  us,  of  whom  we  are  so  justly 
proud,  to  be  loved  in  the  future,  or  even  known  outside  of  a  mere 
handful  of  dry  and  bloodless  bookworms,  we  must  to-day  make 
them  known  to  our  children. 

"All  the  criticisms  so  far  made  on  the  'Stepping-Stones  to 
Literature'  are  negative.  We  have  pointed  out  things  that  are 
wanting.  But  there  is  one  selection  to  which  we  shall  call  special 
attention.  It  is  'The  Battle  Hymn  of  the  Republic,'  by  Julia 
Ward  Howe,  in  the  Sixth  Eeader,  which  represents  the  invading 
Northern  army  as  the  coming  of  the  Lord  in  vengeance.  Com 
ment  on  such  blasphemy  is  unnecessary.  Surely  no  Southerner 
could  have  taken  the  trouble  to  advise  himself  of  the  existence  of 
such  an  outrage  on  our  children." 

Respectfully  submitted. 

GEORGE  L.  CHRISTIAN,  Chairman. 


Report  of  the  History  Committee  of 
the  U.  C.  V.,  Made  to  the  Reunion 
of  Confederate  Veterans,  held  at  Rich 
mond,  Va.,  MaySOth-June  3d,  1907. 

BY 

JUDGE  GEORGE  L.  CHRISTIAN, 

of  Richmond,  Va. 


I.    Which  side  was  responsible  for  the  existence  of  the  cause  or 
causes  of  the  war  ? 

II.  Which  side  was  the  aggressor  in  provoking  the  conflict  ? 

III.  Which  side  had  the  legal  right  to  do  what  was  done  ? 

IV.  Wb.ich  side  conducted  itself  the  better,  and  according  to  the 

rules  of  civilized  warfare,  pending  the  conflict  ? 

V,  The  relations  of  the  slaves  to  the  Confederate  cause  ? 


REPORT 


Within  the  limits  prescribed  for  this  paper  it  is  impossible  to 
discuss  with  any  degree  of  satisfaction  the  issues  involved  in  the 
great  conflict  between  the  North  and  the  South  from  1861  to  1865. 
These  have,  however,  been  so  fully  discussed  by  other  members  of 
this  committee  on  former  occasions,  that  but  little  remains  to  be 
added. 

In  a  recent  work,  with  the  somewhat  arrogant  title,  "  The  True 
History  of  the  Civil  War,"  the  writer  begins  by  saying :  "  The 
seeds  of  dissolution  between  the  North  and  the  South  were  carried 
to  Virginia  in  the  ships  commanded  by  Newport  and  to  Massa 
chusetts  in  the  Mayflower.  Each  kind  fell  upon  soil  well  adapted 
to  nourish  its  characteristics.  .  .  .There  was  in  the  beginning  an 
almost  imperceptible  rift  between  the  people  of  the  North  and  those 
of  the  South.  This  gradually  widened  until,  notwithstanding  the 
necessity  for  union,  a  separation  in  sentiment,  thought,  and  custom 
arose.  This  estrangement  developed  until  it  gave  to  the  people  of 
the  North  and  the  South  the  aspect  of  two  races  manifesting  to 
ward  each  other  all  the  antipathy  of  rival  and  dissimilar  nations, 
and  in  their  disagreement  rendering  impossible  either  sympathy 
with  each  other's  standpoint  or  patient  listening  to  each  other's 
contention." 

Without  intimating  any  opinion  as  to  how  far  all  the  other 
statements  contained  in  this  work  warrant  the  author  in  giving  it 
the  title  selected,  a  few  glances  at  history  will  convince  the  most 
skeptical  that  the  foregoing  statement  is  well  founded. 

In  1775,  when  Washington's  army  was  in  front  of  Boston,  that 
great  patriot-soldier  issued  a  stern  order  threatening  severe  punish 
ment  to  any  man  found  guilty  of  saying  or  doing  anything  to 
aggravate  what  he  termed  "the  existing  sectional  feeling."  And 
during  the  same  year  when  Peyton  Eandolph,  of  Virginia,  the  first 

[175] 


176  Official  Report  of  the 

President  of  the  Continental  Congress,  died,  his  brother-in-law, 
Benjamin  Harrison,  also  from  Virginia,  was  nominated  for  that 
position;  but  as  John  Hancock,  of  Massachusetts,  was  likewise 
nominated,  it  is  said  that  Mr.  Harrison,  "  to  avoid  any  sectional 
jealousy  or  unkindness  of  feeling  between  the  Northern  and  South 
ern  delegates  at  so  momentous  a  crisis,"  had  his  own  name 
withdrawn  and  insisted  on  the  election  of  Mr.  Hancock.  And  so, 
too,  in  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1788,  Mr.  Henry,  in  opposing 
the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  after  pointing  out  the 
provisions  to  which  he  objected,  and  in  which  his  almost  prophetic 
ken  saw  dangers  lurking,  which  have  since  been  realized,  said  after 
all  he  did  not  so  much  object  to  the  form  of  the  instrument  as 
he  did  to  the  character  and  dispositions  of  those  with  whom  we 
were  forming  the  compact.  And  another  distinguished  Virginian, 
with  fervid  eloquence,  exclaimed  that  our  oppressions  under  the 
compact  would  be  "  worse  than  British  tyranny." 

With  these  early  and  seemingly  innate  antipathies,  stimulated 
and  developed  by  growing  and  conflicting  interests,  arising  out  of 
tariffs,  acquisitions  of  territory,  and  other  causes,  the  "  irrepressible 
conflict,"  as  Seward  termed  it,  would  seem  necessarily  only  a  ques 
tion  of  time. 

As  to  the  real  cause  or  causes  which  precipitated  that  conflict, 
there  have  been,  and  still  are,  differences  of  opinion.  In  our  view 
the  settlement  of  this  question  is  secondary,  and  the  vital  questions 
to  be  determined  are : 

(a)  Which  side,  if  either,  was  responsible  for  the  existence  of  the 
cause  or  causes?    And  if  slavery  was  the  cause,  as  some  allege, 
which  side  was  guilty  of  wrong-doing  in  dealing  with  that  cause  ? 

(b)  Which  side  was  the  aggressor  in  provoking  the  conflict? 

(c)  Which  side  had  the  legal  right  to  do  what  was  done? 

(d)  Which  side  conducted  itself  the  better,  and  according  to  the 
rules  of  civilized  warfare,  pending  the  conflict? 

It  seems  to  us  that  an  answer  to  these  questions  is  pertinent  at  all 
times,  and  at  this  distance  for  the  conflict  they  can  be  discussed 
dispassionately  without  engendering  sectional  bad  feeling. 


History  Committee,  United  C.  V.  177 

Our  quondam  enemies,  knowing,  as  it  seems  to  us  they  must 
know,  that  the  evidence  on  every  other  point  is  overwhelmingly 
against  them,  and  relying  on  the  sentiment  of  the  world  now  exist 
ing  against  slavery,  are  prone  to  charge  that  the  South  fought  for 
the  perpetuation  and  extension  of  that  institution ;  or,  to  put  it  in 
the  brief  and  common  form,  they  charge  (as  some  of  our  younger 
people  in  their  ignorance  seem  to  believe)  that  "  slavery  was  the 
cause  of  the  war." 

It  would  seem  to  the  unprejudiced  mind,  that  the  mere  statement 
of  the  fact  (which,  we  believe,  was  a  fact)  that  more  than  eighty 
per  cent,  of  the  Confederate  soldiers  owned  no  slaves,  that  General 
Lee,  our  representative  soldier,  freed  his  slaves  before  the  war, 
whilst  General  Grant,  the  representative  soldier  of  the  North,  held 
on  to  his  until  they  were  freed  by  the  results  of  the  war,  and  the 
further  fact  that  General  Lee  said  at  the  beginning  of  the  war 
that  if  he  owned  all  the  slaves  in  the  South  and  could  by  freeing 
them  save  the  Union  he  would  do  so  with  the  stroke  of  his  pen, 
ought  to  furnish  a  satisfactory  refutation  of  this  unjust  charge. 

But  let  us  admit,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  only,  that  the 
charge  is  true.  How,  then,  does  the  case  stand  as  to  us  both  on 
the  law  and  the  facts  ? 

It  will  not  be  charged  by  the  greatest  enemy  of  the  South,  that  it 
was  in  any  way  responsible,  either  for  the  existence  of  slavery,  or 
for  inaugurating  that  vilest  of  traffics — the  African  slave  trade. 
On  the  contrary,  history  attests  that  slavery  was  forced  upon  this 
country  by  England,  against  the  earnest  protests  of  the  South,  as 
well  as  of  the  North,  when  the  States  were  colonies  under  the  con 
trol  of  that  country ;  that  "  the  first  statute  establishing  slavery  in 
America  is  to  be  found  in  the  famous  Code  of  Fundamentals  or 
Body  of  the  Liberties  of  the  Massachusetts  Colony  of  New  Eng 
land,  adopted  in  December,  1641,"  that  the  "Desire,"  one  of  the 
very  first  vessels  built  in  Massachusetts,  was  fitted  out  for  carrying 
on  the  slave  trade ;  "  that  the  traffic  became  so  popular  that  great 
attention  was  paid  to  it  by  the  New  England  shipowners,  and  that 
they  practically  monopolized  it  for  a  number  of  years."  ("  The 
11 


178  Official  Report  of  the 

True  Civil  War."  pp.  28,  29,  30.)  And  history  further  attests  that 
Virginia  was  the  first  State,  North  or  South,  to  prohibit  the  slave 
traffic  from  Africa,  and  that  Georgia  was  the  first  to  incorporate 
that  prohibition  in  her  Constitution. 

We  have  no  desire  to  say  unkind  things  about  the  North.  But 
it  is  easy  to  show,  that  as  long  as  slavery  existed  there,  as  it  did  in 
all  the  Colonies  when  independence  was  declared,  the  treatment  of 
slaves  by  the  people  of  that  section  was  as  harsh  as,  if  not  more  so. 
than  was  ever  known  in  any  part  of  the  South.  Not  only  is  this 
true,  but  it  is  also  easy  to  show  that  as  long  as  the  people  of  the 
North  were  the  owners  of  slaves  they  regarded  and  treated  and  dis 
posed  of  them  as  ''  property,"  just  as  the  people  of  England  had 
done  since  1713,  when  slaves  were  held  to  be  "  merchandise "  by 
the  twelve  judges  of  that  country,  with  the  venerable  Holt  at  their 
head.  We  could  further  show  that  slavery  existed  at  the  North 
just  as  long  as  it  was  profitable  to  have  it  there;  that  the  moral  and 
religious  sense  of  that  section  was  only  heard  to  complain  of  that 
institution  after  it  was  found  to  be  unprofitable,  and  after  the  peo 
ple  of  that  section  had,  for  the  most  part,  sold  their  slaves  to  the 
people  of  the  South;  and  that,  after  Whitney's  invention  of  the 
cotton  gin,  which  wrought  such -a  revolution  in  the  production  of 
cotton  at  the  South  as  to  cause  slave  labor  greatly  to  increase  in 
value,  and  which  induced  many  Northern  men  to  engage  in  that 
production,  these  men  almost  invariably  purchased  their  slaves  for 
that  purpose,  and  many  of  these  owned  them  when  the  war  broke 
out. 

The  South  was  then  in  no  sense  responsible  for  the  existence  of 
slavery  within  its  borders,  but  it  was  brought  there  against  its  will ; 
it  was  clearly  recognized  and  attempted  to  be  controlled  and  pro 
tected  by  the  Constitution — the  supreme  law  of  the  land — and  the 
people  of  the  South,  not  believing  that  any  other  or  better  dispo 
sition  could  be  made  of  the  slaves  than  by  holding  them  in  bondage, 
only  continued  to  do  this. 

In  the  meantime  numerous  efforts  were  made,  both  by  Southern 
States  and  by  individuals,  to  abolish  the  institution,  and  it  is  the 


History  Committee,  United  C.  V.  179 

almost  universal  belief  now  that  these  efforts  would  have  succeeded 
gradually,  but  for  the  harsh  and  unjust  criticisms  of  the 
Southern  people  by  some  of  those  at  the  North,  and  the  outrageous, 
illegal,  and  incendiary  interference,  by  the  Abolitionists  and  their 
emissaries.  As  early  as  1769  the  House  of  Burgesses  of  Virginia 
tried  to  abolish  slavery  in  Virginia,  but  was  prohibited  by  the  veto 
of  George  III.,  then  King  of  England,  "  in  the  interests  of  English 
commerce."  And  throughout  the  period  from  1776  to  1832,  when 
the  work  of  the  Abolitionists  first  began  to  be  felt,  the  question  of 
how  to  accomplish  emancipation  engaged  the  thought  of  some  of 
the  most  eminent  men  of  Virginia  and  other  Southern  States. 

Mr.  George  Lunt,  a  distinguished  lawyer  of  Massachusetts,  in  his 
interesting  work,  entitled  "  Origin  of  the  Late  War,"  in  which  he 
shows  that  the  North  was  the  aggressor  and  wrongdoer  throughout, 
says :  "  Slavery  in  the  popular  sense,  was  the  cause  of  war,  just 
as  property  is  the  cause  of  robbery." 

Whilst  we  do  not  indorse  this  statement,  looking  at  the  subject 
from  the  view-point  of  a  Southerner,  yet  if  it  were  true,  surely 
there  is  nothing  in  it  from  which  the  people  of  the  North  can  take 
any  comfort  or  credit  to  themselves. 

But  so  anxious  are  our  former  enemies  to  convince  the  world 
that  the  South  did  fight  for  the  perpetuation  of  slavery  that  some 
of  them  have,  either  wittingly  or  unwittingly,  resorted  to  mis 
representations  or  misinterpretations  of  some  of  the  sayings  of  our 
representative  men  to  try  to  establish  this  as  a  fact.  A  noted  in 
stance  of  this  is  found  in  the  oft-repeated  charge  that  the  late  Mr. 
Alexander  H.  Stephens,  Vice-President  of  the  Confederacy,  had 
said  in  his  famous  speech,  delivered  at  Savannah  in  February,  1861, 
that  "  slavery  was  the  corner  stone  of  the  Confederacy." 

We  have  heard  this  charge  made  by  one  of  the  most  enlightened 
and  liberal  men  at  the  North,  and  yet  we  have  at  hand  utterances 
from  this  same  Northerner  tantamount  to  what  Mr.  Stephens  said 
in  that  speech.  Mr.  Stephens  was  speaking  of  the  Confederacy, 
just  then  organized,  and  contrasting  some  of  the  principles  on 
which  it  was  founded  with  some  of  those  of  the  Eepublican  party, 


180  Official  Report  of  the 

then  coming  into  power  for  the  first  time,  and  he  said :  "  Our 
government  is  founded  on  exactly  the  opposite  idea  (that  the  two 
races,  black  and  white,  are  equal);  its  foundations  are  laid;  its 
corner  stone  rests  upon  the  great  truth  that  the  negro  is  not  the 
equal  of  the  white  man ;  that  slavery,  subordination  to  the  superior 
race,  is  his  (the  negro's)  natural  and  normal  condition." 

Now  it  will  be  observed  in  the  first  place,  that  Mr.  Stephens  said 
the  "  corner  stone "  of  the  Confederacy  "  rests  upon  the  great 
truth  that  the  negro  is  not  the  equal  of  the  white  man."  And  isn't 
this  fact  recognized  as  true  to-day  in  every  part  of  this  land  ? 

But  hear  now  the  utterances  of  this  liberal  and  cultured  North 
erner  on  the  same  subject  when  he  says  as  he  does :  "  The  Africans 
are  distinctly  an  inferior  order  of  being,  not  only  in  the  South,  or 
slave  States,  but  throughout  the  North  also,  not  entitled  to  unre 
stricted  pursuit  on  equal  terms  of  life,  liberty,  and  happiness." 

Is  there  any  difference  in  principle  between  these  two  utterances  ? 
If,  as  this  distinguished  Northerner  asserts,  and  as  every  one  knows 
to  be  true,  the  negroes  are  "  distinctly  an  inferior  order  of  being  " 
and  "  not  entitled  to  the  unrestricted  pursuit  on  equal  terms  [with 
the  whites]  of  life,  liberty,  and  happiness,"  does  not  this  make 
"  subordination  to  the  superior  race  his  natural  and  normal  condi 
tion,"  as  Mr.  Stephen  says? 

But  hear  now  what  Mr.  Lincoln,  the  great  demigod  of  the  North, 
had  to  say  on  this  subject  in  a  speech  delivered  at  Charleston,  111., 
in  1858,  when  he  said :  "  I  will  say,  then,  that  I  am  not  now,  nor 
never  have  been,  in  favor  of  bringing  about  in  any  way  the  social  or 
political  equality  of  the  white  and  black  races.  I  am  not  now, 
nor  never  have  been,  in  favor  of  making  voters  or  jurors  of  negroes, 
nor  of  qualifying  them  to  hold  office,  nor  of  intermarriage  with 
white  people;  and  I  will  say,  in  addition  to  this,  that  there  is  a 
physical  difference  between  the  white  and  black  races  which,  I  be 
lieve,  will  forever  forbid  the  two  races  living  together  on  terms  of 
social  and  political  equality.  Inasmuch  as  they  cannot  so  live, 
while  they  do  remain  together,  there  must  be  a  position  of  superior 
and  inferior,  and  I,  as  much  as  any  other  man,  am  in  favor  of 
having  the  superior  position  assigned  to  the  white  man." 


History  Committee,  United  C.  V.  181 

Again  we  ask:  Is  there  any  difference  in  principle  between 
what  is  here  said  by  Mr.  Lincoln  and  what  was  said  by  Mr. 
Stephens  in  his  famous  "  corner  stone  "  speech  ? 

And,  notwithstanding  Mr.  Lincoln  issued  his  "  Emancipation 
Proclamation  "  eighteen  months  later,  he  said  in  his  first  inaugural : 
"  I  have  no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere  with  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  I  believe  I 
have  no  lawful  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  inclination  to  do  so." 
Could  he  have  used  stronger  language  to  show,  that  he  believed 
not  only  in  the  legality  of  the  position  of  the  South  on  the  subject 
of  slavery,  but  that  he  believed  in  the  propriety  of  that  position  as 
well? 

Mr.  Toombs  said  in  a  speech  delivered  in  Boston  in  1856 : 
"  The  white  is  the  superior  and  the  black  the  inferior,  and 
subordination,  with  or  without  law,  will  be  the  status  of  the  African 
in  this  mixed  society.  Therefore  it  is  to  the  interest  of  both,  and 
especially  to  the  black  race,  that  this  status  should  be  fixed,  con 
trolled,  and  protected  by  law."  And  this  is  just  as  true  to-day  as 
it  was  when  this  statement  was  made  by  this  great  statesman  in 
1856. 

But  there  is  this  remarkable  fact  in  connection  with  slavery,  and 
its  relations  to  the  war,  which  we  have  not  seen  elsewhere  referred 
to,  and  which  is  to  our  mind  a  conclusive  refutation  of  the  charge 
that  the  continuation  or  the  extinction  of  slavery,  had  any  influence 
whatever  on  the  conduct  of  the  Southern  people,  and  especially  that 
of  the  Confederate  soldier  in  that  war. 

The  writer  belonged  to  one  of  the  three  companies  in  the  army, 
the  personnel  of  which  is  so  vividly  described  by  the  author  of 
"  Four  Years  under  Marse  Kobert,"  in  which  there  were  serving  as 
privates,  many  full  graduates  of  the  University  of  Virginia,  and 
other  leading  colleges,  both  North  and  South.  In  these  companies 
a  variety  of  subjects  pertaining  to  the  war,  religion,  politics,  philos 
ophy,  literature,  and  what  not,  were  discussed  v,dth  intelligence, 
and  often  with  animation  and  ability,  and  yet  neither  he,  nor  any  of 
his  comrades  can  recall  the  fact,  that  they  ever  heard  the  subject  of 


182  Official  Report  of  the 

slavery,  or  the  relations  of  the  slaves  to  the  war,  referred  to  in  any 
way  during  that  period,  except  that,  when  it  was  determined  to  put 
slaves  in  our  army,  a  violent  protest  against  doing  so  went  up  from 
the  ranks,  and  the  only  thing  which  even  partially  reconciled  our 
men  to  this  proposed  action,  was  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  it 
had  the  sanction  and  approval  of  General  Lee.  We  have  inquired 
of  comrades  of  various  other  commands  about  this,  and  with  the 
like  result.  Do  men  fight  for  a  thing  or  a  cause  they  never  speak 
of  or  discuss  ?  It  seems  to  us  that  to  ask  this  question  is  to  furnish 
the  answer. 

Not  only  is  the  foregoing  statement  true,  but  with  the  exception 
of  the  steps  taken  to  send  negroes  to  help  erect  fortifications,  em 
ploying  them  as  laborers,  etc.,  but  little  consideration  seems  to  have 
been  given  them,  or  of  their  status  to  the  war,  either  by  the  Con 
gress  or  the  Cabinet  of  the  Confederacy.  The  reasons  for  this  are 
manifest  to  those  of  us  who  lived  in  those  days,  but  a  word  of  ex 
planation  may  be  necessary  to  those  who  have  since  come  on  the 
stage  of  life.  In  the  first  place  slavery,  as  it  existed  in  the  South, 
was  patriarchal  in  its  character;  the  slaves  (servants,  as  we  called 
them)  were  regarded  and  treated  as  members  of  the  families  to 
which  they  severally  belonged ;  with  rare  exceptions,  they  were 
treated  with  kindness  and  consideration,  and  frequently  the  rela 
tions  between  the  slave  and  his  owner,  were  those  of  real  affection 
and  confidence.  As  Mr.  Lunt,  the  Boston  writer,  from  whom  we 
have  already  quoted,  says :  "  The  negroes  were  perfectly  contented 
with  their  lot.  In  general  they  were  not  only  happy  in  their  con 
dition,  but  proud  of  it." 

Their  owners  trusted  them  with  their  families,  their  farms,  and 
their  affairs,  and  this  confidence  was  rarely  betrayed — scarcely  ever, 
unless  the  slaves  were  forced  to  violate  their  trusts  by  coming  in 
contact  with  the  Federal  armies,  or  were  beguiled  and  betrayed 
themselves  by  mean  and  designing  white  men.  The  truth  is,  both 
the  white  and  the  black  people  of  the  South,  regarded  the  Confed 
erate  cause  alike  as  their  cause,  and  looked  to  its  success  with  almost, 
if  not  equal,  anxiety  and  delight.  A  most  striking  illustration  of 


History  Committee,  United  C.  V.  183 

this  and  of  the  readiness  of  the  slaves  to  fight  even,  if  necessary,  for 
the  Confederate  cause  is  furnished  by  the  following  incident:  In 
February,,  1865,  when  negro  troops  had  been  authorized  to  be  en 
rolled  in  the  Confederate  army,  there  were  employed  at  Jackson 
Hospital,  near  Eichmond,  seventy-two  negro  men  (slaves).  The 
surgeon  in  charge,  the  late  Dr.  F.  W.  Hancock,  of  Richmond,  had 
these  men  formed  in  line ;  and  after  asking  them  "  if  they  would  be 
willing  to  take  up  arms  to  protect  their  masters'  families,  homes,  and 
their  own,  from  an  attacking  foe,  sixty  out  of  seventy-two  responded 
that  they  would  volunteer  to  go  to  the  trenches  and  fight  the  enemy 
to  the  Utter  end"  ("War  Rebellion  Records/'  Series  IV., 
Volume  II.,  p.  1193.) 

At  the  date  here  referred  to,  we  know,  that  the  life  of  the  con 
federate  soldier  was  one  of  the  greatest  hardship  and  peril,  and  the 
fact  that,  five  out  of  every  six  of  these  negroes,  were  then  ready  to 
volunteer  and  go  to  the  trenches,  showed  conclusively  how  truly  they 
regarded  the  Confederate  cause  as  their  cause  as  well  as  that  of  the 
white  people  of  the  South.  Indeed,  we  doubt  if  a  larger  per  cent. 
of  the  whites,  in  any  part  of  the  country,  would  have  volunteered  to 
go  to  the  front  at  that  stage  of  the  war.  If,  then,  it  were  true,  as 
alleged,  that  the  white  people  of  the  South  were  fighting  for  slavery, 
does  it  not  necessarily  follow  that  the  slaves  themselves  were  ready 
and  willing  to  fight  for  it  too?  One  of  these  propositions  is  just 
as  true  as  the  other. 

We  think  we  have  shown  then  that  even  if  we  admit  that  slavery 
was,  as  falsely  charged,  the  "  cause  of  the  war  "  the  South  was  in 
no  way  responsible  for  the  existence  of  that  cause ;  but  it  was  a  con 
dition  forced  upon  it,  one  recognized  by  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  one  which  the  South  dealt  with  legally  and  justly,  as  contem 
plated  by  that  law,  and  history  shows  that  in  every  respect,  and  in 
every  instance,  the  aggressions  and  violations  of  the  law  were  com 
mitted  by  the  North.  Mr.  Lunt  says :  "  Of  four  several  compro 
mises  between  the  two  sections  of  country  since  the  Revolutionary 
War,  each  has  been  kept  by  the  South  and  violated  by  the  North." 
Indeed,  we  challenge  the  North  to  point  out  one  single  instance  in 


184  Official  Report  of  the 

which  the  South  violated  the  Constitution  or  any  of  the  laws  made 
in  pursuance  thereof;  whilst,  on  the  contrary,  fourteen  of  the 
Northern  States  passed  acts  nullifying  the  fugitive  slave  law, 
passed  by  Congress  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution,  denounced  and 
defied  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  Judge  Black,  of 
Pennsylvania,  says  of  the  Abolitionists:  "They  applauded  John 
Brown  to  the  echo,  for  a  series  of  the  basest  murders  on  record. 
They  did  not  conceal  their  hostility  to  the  Federal  and  State  gov 
ernments  nor  deny  their  enmity  to  all  laws  which  protected  white 
men.  The  Constitution  stood  in  their  way,  and  they  cursed  it 
bitterly.  The  Bible  was  quoted  against  them,  and  they  reviled  God 
the  Almighty  himself." 

(2)  Our  next  inquiry  is:  Which  side  was  the  aggressor  in  pro- 
voicing  the  conflict? 

Mr.  Hallam,  in  his  "  Constitutional  History  of  England,"  states 
a  universally  recognized  principle  when  he  says :  "  The  aggressor 
in  war — that  is,  he  who  begins  it — is  not  the  first  who  uses  force, 
but  the  first  who  renders  force  necessary." 

We  think  we  have  already  shown,  by  Northern  authorities,  that 
the  North  was  the  aggressor  and  violator  of  the  Constitution  and 
of  the  legal  rights  of  the  South  in  reference  to  what  they  allege  to 
be  the  "  cause  of  the  war,"  and  it  is  easy  to  show,  by  like  author 
ities,  that  it  was  clearly  the  aggressor  in  bringing  on  the  war. 

On  the  7th  of  April,  1861,  President  Davis  said:  "With  the 
Lincoln  administration  rests  the  responsibility  of  precipitating  a 
collision  and  the  fearful  evils  of  a  cruel  war." 

In  his  reply  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  call  for  Virginia's  quota  of  seventy- 
five  thousand  troops  to  coerce  the  South,  on  April  15,  1861,  Gov 
ernor  Letcher  said :  "  You  have  chosen  to  inaugurate  civil  war, 
and  you  can  get  no  troops  from  Virginia  for  any  such  purpose." 

But  we  are  not  content  to  rest  this  question  on  the  statements 
of  these  Southern  authorities,  as  high  as  they  are,  but  will  let 
Northern  writers  say  what  they  think  about  this  important  matter. 


History  Committee,  United  C.  V.  185 

Mr.  Lunt  says  in  reference  to  Mr.  Lincoln  sending  the  fleet  to 
reenforce  Sumter  in  April,,  1861 :  "  It  was  intended  to  draw  the 
fire  of  the  Confederates,  and  was  a  silent  aggression  with  the  object 
of  producing  an  active  aggression  from  the  other  side." 

Mr.  Benjamin  J.  Williams,  another  Massachusetts  writer,  says: 
"  The  South  was  invaded  and  a  war  of  subjugation,  destined  to  be 
the  most  gigantic  which  the  world  has  ever  seen,  was  begun  by  the 
Federal  government  against  the  seceding  States,  in  complete  and 
amazing  disregard  of  the  foundation  principle  of  its  own  existence, 
as  affirmed  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that  governments 
derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed." 

But  let  us  hear  what  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  has  to  say  on  this  ques 
tion,  and  with  his  testimony  we  shall  regard  the  question  as  con 
clusively  settled.  In  reply  to  a  committee  from  Chicago  sent  to 
intercede  with  him  to  be  relieved  from  sending  more  troops  from 
that  city  to  the  Northern  armies,  Mr.  Lincoln  said  in  a  tone  of  bit 
terness  :  "  Gentlemen,  after  Boston,  Chicago  has  been  the  chief 
instrument  in  bringing  this  war  on  the  country.  The  Northwest 
has  opposed  the  South,  as  New  England  has  opposed  the  South.  It 
is  you  who  are  largely  responsible  for  making  blood  flow  as  it  has. 
You  called  for  war  until  we  had  it;  you  called  for  emancipation, 
and  I  have  given  it  to  you.  Whatever  you  have  asked,  you  have 
had.  Now  you  come  here  begging  to  be  let  off.  You  ought  to  be 
ashamed  of  yourselves."  ( See  TarbelPs  "  Life  of  Lincoln," 
Volume  II.,  p.  149.) 

Not  only  then  are  we  justified  in  saying  that  the  North  was  the 
aggressor  in  bringing  on  the  war,  but  the  latest  Northern  writer 
we  have  read  from  on  this  subject  states  this  fact  in  as  unmistak 
able  terms  as  it  was  stated  by  President  Davis  on  April  the  7th, 
1861,  above  quoted.  This  writer  says: — 

"The  determination  expressed  by  Lincoln  in  his  inaugural  fto 
hold,  occupy  and  possess  the  property  and  places  belonging  to  the 
United  States/  precipitated  the  outbreak."  (James  Kendall  Hos- 
mer,  L  .L.  D.,  in  the  American  Nation ;  A  History,  Vol.  20,  page 
26). 


186  Official  Report  of  the 

And  again  on  page  43  the  same  writer  says : — 

"  Lincoln's  announced  determination  'to  hold,  occupy  and  possess 
the  property  and  places  belonging  to  the  Government,  and  to  collect 
the  duties  and  imposts'  was  practically  the  announcement  of  an 
offensive  war." 

(3)   Which  side  had  the  legal  right  to  do  what  was  done? 

On  the  column  of  the  monument  erected  to  our  great  civic  leader 
are  the  words  pro  aris  et  focis,  meaning  that  the  real  cause  of  the 
South  was  that  we  fought  in  defense  of  our  altars  and  our  firesides. 
And  the  man  who  would  not 

"  Strike  for  his  altars  and  his  fires, 
God  and  his  native  land," 

is  a  craven  and  a  coward  and  unworthy  even  of  the  name  of  man. 
Our  country  was  invaded  by  armed  men  intent  on  coercion  and 
conquest.  We  met  them  on  the  threshold  and  beat  them  and  drove 
them  back  as  long  as  we  had  anything  to  eat  or  strength  to  fight 
with.  We  could  do  no  more,  we  could  do  no  less,  and  history,  our 
children,  and  even  many  of  our  former  enemies,  now  applaud  our 
conduct. 

There  were,  however,  two,  and  but  two,  question  really  involved 
in  the  conflict.  We  can  scarcely  do  more  than  state  these  and  cite 
some  of  the  many  Northern  authorities  to  sustain  the  position  that 
the  South  was  right  on  both  of  these.  They  were:  (1)  The  right 
of  a  State  to  secede,  and  (2)  the  right  of  the  Federal  government 
to  coerce  a  seceding  State.  As  to  the  first  of  these  questions,  the 
late  Judge  Black,  of  Pennsylvania,  said  what  is  true :  "  Secession, 
like  slavery,  was  first  planted  in  New  England.  There  it  grew  and 
flourished  and  spread  its  branches  far  over  the  land  before  it  was 
ever  dreamed  of  at  the  South."  And  he  further  says  that  John 
Quincy  Adams,  in  1839,  and  Abraham  Lincoln,  in  1847,  made  elab 
orate  arguments  in  favor  of  the  legal  right  of  a  State  to  secede. 

Mr.  William  Rawle,  also  late  of  Pennsylvania,  in  his  work  on  the 
Constitution,  the  text-book  used  at  West  Point  before  the  war,  says : 
"  It  depends  on  the  State  itself  to  retain  or  abolish  the  principle  of 


History  Committee,  United  C.  V.  187 

representation,  because  it  depends  on  itself  whether  it  will  continue 
a  member  of  the  Union." 

Timothy  Pickering,  Josiah  Quincy,  and  Mr.  Henry  Cabot  Lodge, 
all  of  Massachusetts,  the  late  Horace  Greeley,  Goldwin  Smith, 
General  Don  Piet,  of  the  Federal  Army,  and  the  Hartford  Conven 
tion,  all  asserted  and  affirmed  the  same  doctrine.  And  we  know, 
that  had  not  this  right  been  understood  to  exist  at  the  time  of  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  it  would  never  have  been  adopted. 

As  to  the  second  of  these  questions — i.  e.,  the  right  of  the  Federal 
government  to  coerce  a  seceding  State.  This  question  was  dis 
cussed  to  some  extent  in  the  convention  which  framed  the  Consti 
tution.  Mr.  Madison  (the  "Father  of  the  Constitution")  said: 
"The  more  he  reflected  on  the  use  of  force,  the  more  he  doubted 
the  practicability,  the  justice,  and  the  efficiency  of  it  when 
applied  to  people  collectively  and  not  individually.  A  union  of  the 
States  containing  such  an  ingredient  seemed  to  provide  for  its 
own  destruction"  (Italics  ours.) 

And  Mr.  Hamilton  said :  "  But  how  can  this  force  be  exercised 
on  the  States  collectively?  It  is  impossible.  It  amounts  to  war 
between  the  parties.  Foreign  powers  also  will  not  be  idle  specta 
tors.  They  will  interpose,  and  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  will 
ensue."  (5th  Mad.  Pap.  140  and  200.)  And  no  such  right  or 
power  can  be  found  auy where  in  the  Constitution. 

The  late  James  C.  Carter,  of  New  York  (a  native  of  New  Eng 
land),  one  of  the  greatest  lawyers  this  country  has  ever  produced, 
said :  "  I  may  hazard  the  opinion  that  if  the  question  had  been 
raised,  not  in  1860,  but  in  1788,  immediately  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  whether  the  Union,  as  formed  by  that  instrument, 
could  lawfully  treat  the  secession  of  a  State  as  rebellion  and  sup 
press  it  by  force,  few  of  those  who  participated  in  forming  that  in 
strument  would  have  answered  in  the  affirmative." 

In  November,  1860,  the  New  York  Herald  said :  "  Each  State 
is  organized  as  a  complete  government,  holding  the  purse  and  wield 
ing  the  sword,  possessing  the  right  to  break  the  tie  of  confederation 
as  a  nation  might  break  a  treaty,  and  to  repel  coercion  as  a  nation 


188  Official  Report  of  the 

might  repel  invasion.  .  .  .  Coercion,  if  it  were  possible,  is  out  of  the 


tion. 

The  question  was  maturely  considered  by  Mr.  Buchanan  and  his 
Cabinet  at  the  close  of  his  administration,  and  it  was  unanimously 
determined  that  no  such  right  existed. 

One  of  the  resolutions  of  the  platform  of  the  Chicago  Convention, 
on  which  Mr.  Lincoln  was  elected,  and  which  he  reaffirmed  in  his 
first  inaugural,,  was  the  following: 

"  Resolved,  That  the  maintenance  inviolate  of  the  rights  of  the 
States,  and  especially  the  right  of  each  State  to  order  and  control 
its  own  domestic  institutions  according  to  its  own  judgment  ex 
clusively,  is  essential  to  the  balance  of  power  on  which  the  perfec 
tion  and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric  depends,  and  we  denounce 
the  lawless  invasion  by  armed  force  of  the  soil  of  any  State  or 
Territory,  no  matter  under  what  pretext,  as  among  the  gravest  of 
crimes/' 

To  show  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  fully  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  he 
was  committing  this  "gravest  of  crimes"  when  he  caused  his  armies 
to  invade  the  Southern  States,  we  will  give  his  own  definition  of  the 
meaning  of  the  terms  "  invasion  "  and  "  coercion,"  as  contained  in 
his  speech  delivered  at  Indianapolis  on  his  journey  to  Washington 
to  be  inaugurated  in  February,  1861.  He  asks:  "What,  then,  is 
'coercion?'  What  is  'invasion?'  Would  the  marching  of  an  army 
into  South  Carolina,  without  the  consent  of  her  people,  and  with 
hostile  intent  toward  them  be  'invasion?'  I  certainly  think  it 
would,  and  it  would  be  'coercion'  also  if  South  Carolinians  were 
forced  to  submit/' 

Is  not  this  exactly  what  he  did  to  South  Carolina  and  to  all  the 
other  Southern  States?  And  is  it  not  true  that  this  "gravest  of 
crimes  "  having  been  committed  by  him  without  the  authority  of 
Congress,  or  any  legal  right,  was  the  sole  cause  why  the  Southern 
people  went  to  war  ?  We  know  that  such  is  the  fact,  and  surely  no 
further  authorities  can  be  necessary  to  show  that  the  South  was 
right  on  both  of  the  only  two  questions  involved  in  the  war ;  and  if 
it  had  not  resisted  and  fought  under  the  circumstances,  in  which  it 
was  placed,  it  would  have  been  eternally  disgraced. 


History  Committee,  United  C.  V.  189 

We  can  only  state  and  without  discussing  at  all  our  last  inquiry, 
which  is: 

(4)  Which  side  conducted  itself  the  better  and  according  to  the 
rules  of  civilized  warfare  pending  the  conflict? 

With  the  notoriously  infamous  records  of  the  conduct  of  Sheri 
dan,  Hunter,  and  Milroy  in  the  Valley  (to  say  nothing  of  how  far 
Grant  participated  in  that  conduct),  of  that  of  Pope  and  Steinwehr 
in  Piedmont,  Va.,  of  that  of  Butler  in  Norfolk  and  New  Orleans, 
and,  worse  than  all,  the  confessed  vandalism  of  Sherman  on  his 
"March  to  the  Sea,"  together  with  his  burning  Atlanta  and 
Columbia,  the  last  stimulated  and  encouraged  by  Halleck,  the  chief 
of  staff  of  the  armies  of  the  Union ;  and  then  contrast  all  this  with 
the  humane  order  of  General  Lee,  on  his  campaign  of  invasion  into 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  conduct  of  his  army  in  that  campaign,  and 
there  can  be  but  one  answer  to  this  inquiry.  That  answer  is  that 
the  South  did  right  and  that  the  North  did  wrong. 

"God  holds  the  scales  of  justice; 

He  will  measure  praise  and  blame. 

And  the  South  will  stand  the  verdict, 

And  will  stand  it  without  shame." 

Respectfully  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  History  Committee, 
U.  C.  V.  GEORGE  L.  CHRISTIAN. 


STONEWALL  JACKSON 

AN  ADDRESS  BY 
HUNTER  McGUIRE,  M.  D.,  L.  L.  D. 

MEDICAL  DIRECTOR  JACKSON'S  CORPS,  A.  N.  V. 

At  the  dedication  of  Jackson  Memorial  Hall,  Virginia  Military  In 
stitute,  and  repeated  before  R.  E.  Lee  Camp  No.  1,  C.  V. 
Richmond,  Va.,  July  9th,  1897. 


STONEWALL  JACKSON. 


Mr.  President,  General,  Cadets  of  the  Virginia  Military  Institute, 
Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

I  understand,  and  I  beg  this  audience  to  understand,  that  I  am 
here  to-day,  not  because  I  have  any  place  among  the  orators,  or  am 
able  to  do  anything  except  "to  speak  right  on"  and  "tell  you  that 
which  you  yourselves  do  know,"  but  because  the  noblest  heritage  I 
shall  hand  down  to  my  children  is  the  fact,  that  Stonewall  Jackson 
condescended  to  hold  and  to  treat  me  as  his  friend.  I  know,  and 
you  know,  that  as  long  as  valor  and  virtue  are  honored  among  men, 
as  long  as  greatness  of  mind  and  grandeur  of  soul  excite  our  admi 
ration,  as  long  as  Virginia  parents  desire  noble  examples  to  set  be 
fore  their  sons,  and  as  long  as  there  dwells  in  the  souls  of  Virginia 
boys  that  fire  of  native  nobleness  which  can  be  kindled  by  tales  of 
heroic  endeavor,  so  long  will  Virginia  men  and  women  be  ready  to 
hear  of  the  words  and  the  deeds  of  Virginia's  heroic  sons,  and, 
therefore,  ready  and  glad  to  hear  how  valorous  and  how  virtuous, 
how  great  and  how  grand,  in  every  thought  and  action,  was  the  Vir 
ginian  of  whom  I  speak  to-day — to  know  in  what  awesome  Titanic 
mould  was  cast  that  quiet  Professor  who  once  did  his  duty  here; 
that  silent  stranger,  whom  no  man  knew  until  "  the  fire  of  God  fell 
upon  him  in  the  battle-field,"  as  it  did  upon  Arthur — the  fire  by 
which  Sir  Launcelot  knew  him  for  his  king — the  fire  that  like  the 
"live  coal  from  off  the  altar  touched  the  lips"  of  Jackson  and 
brought  from  them  that  kingly  voice  which  the  eagle  of  victory 
knew  and  obeyed.  For  a  king  was  Stonewall  Jackson,  if  ever 
royalty,  anointed  as  by  fire,  appeared  among  men. 

When  Egypt,  or  Persia,  or  Greece,  or  Eome  was  the  world ;  when 
the  fame  of  a  king  reached  the  borders  of  his  own  dominion  but 
scarcely  crossed  them;  when  a  great  conqueror  was  known  as  far 
as  his  banners  could  fly;  friends  (or  enemies)  could  assign  a  war 
rior's  rank  amongst  mankind  and  his  place  in  history.  These  lat- 
13  [  193  ] 


194:  Stonewall  Jackson. 

ter  ages  have  agreed  that  a  Ramases,  a  Cyrus,,  an  Alexander  or  a 
Constantine  shall  be  styled  "  The  Great,"  accepting  therein  the  esti 
mate  put  upon  them  by  the  contracted  times  in  which  they  lived, 
supported  perchance  by  the  story  of  their  deeds  as  laboriously 
chiseled  on  some  long-buried  slab,  recorded  on  some  hardly-recov 
ered  sheets  of  ancient  parchment,  or  written  on  some  dozen  pages 
of  a  literature,  the  language  of  which  serves  the  purposes  of  the 
ghosts  along  the  Styx,  as  they  tell  each  other  of  glories  long  de 
parted. 

To-day  the  world  is  wide,  and  before  the  world's  tribunal  each 
candidate  for  historic  honors  must  appear.  The  world's  estimate, 
and  that  alone,  posterity  will  accept,  and  even  that  it  will  hereafter 
most  carefully  revise. 

The  young  Emperor  of  Germany,  seeking  to  decree  his  grand 
father's  place  in  history,  would  have  him  styled  "  William  the 
Great."  Here  and  there,  in  one  nation  and  another,  press  and 
people  combine  to  deify  some  popular  hero,  and  offer  him  for  the 
plaudits  or  the  worship  of  the  age.  It  is  a  vain  endeavor.  The 
universal  judgment  cannot  be  forestalled.  No  force  nor  artifice  can 
make  mankind  accept  as  final  the  false  estimate  instead  of  the  true. 
Money,  powerful,  dangerous  and  threatening  as  it  now  is  in  this 
Republic,  cannot  for  long  buy  a  verdict.  The  unbiased  world  alone 
is  capable  of  stamping  upon  the  forehead  of  man,  that  mark  which 
neither  the  injustice  of  adverse  interest,  nor  envy's  gnawing  tooth, 
nor  the  ceaseless  flow  of  the  river  of  time,  is  able  to  efface. 

Therefore,  it  was  with  swelling  heart  and  deep  thankfulness,  that 
I  recently  heard  some  of  the  first  soldiers  and  military  students  of 
England  declare,  that  within  the  past  two  hundred  years  the  Eng 
lish-speaking  race  has  produced  but  five  soldiers  of  the  first  rank — 
Marlborough,  Washington,  Wellington,  Robert  Lee  and  Stonewall 
Jackson.  I  heard  them  declare  that  Jackson's  campaign  in  the 
Shenandoah  Valley,  in  which  you,  and  you,  and  you,  and  I  myself 
in  my  subordinate  place,  followed  this  immortal,  was  the  finest 
specimen  of  strategy  and  tactics  of  which  the  world  has  any  record ; 
that  in  this  series  of  marches  and  battles  there  was  never  a  blunder 


Stonewall  Jackson.  195 

committed  by  Jackson;  that  this  campaign  in  the  Valley  was  supe 
rior  to  either  of  those  made  by  Napoleon  in  Italy.  One  British 
officer,  who  teaches  strategy  in  a  great  European  college,,  told  me 
that  he  used  this  campaign  as  a  model  of  strategy  and  tactics  and 
dwelt  upon  it  for  several  months  in  his  lectures ;  that  it  was  taught 
for  months  of  each  session  in  the  schools  of  Germany ;  and  that  Von 
Moltke,  the  great  strategist,  declared  it  was  without  a  rival  in  the 
world's  history.  This  same  British  officer  told  me  that  he  had  rid 
den  on  horseback  over  the  battle-fields  of  the  Valley  and  carefully 
studied  the  strategy  and  tactics  there  displayed  by  Jackson.  He 
had  followe.d  him  to  Richmond,  where  he  joined  with  Lee  in  the 
campaign  against  McClellan  in  1862 ;  that  he  had  followed  his  detour 
around  Pope — his  management  of  his  troops  at  second  Manassas; 
that  he  had  studied  his  environment  of  Harper's  Ferry  and  its  cap 
ture,  his  part  of  the  fight  at  Sharpsburg,  and  his  flank  movement 
around  Hooker,  and  that  he  had  never  blundered.  "  Indeed,"  he 
added,  "  Jackson  seemed  to  me  (him)  inspired."  Another  British 
soldier  told  me  that  for  its  numbers  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia 
had  more  force  and  power  than  any  other  army  that  ever  existed. 

High  as  is  my  estimate  of  the  deeds  of  the  Second  Corps  of  the 
Army  of  Northern  Virginia,  I  heard  these  opinions  with  a  new 
elation,  for  I  knew  they  presented  the  verdict  of  impartial  history; 
the  verdict  that  posterity  will  stamp  with  its  approval ;  a  verdict — 
in  itself  such  a  tribute  to  valor  and  virtue,  devotion  and  truth — as 
shall  serve  to  inspire,  exalt  and  ennoble  our  children,  and  our  chil 
dren's  children,  to  the  remotest  generations. 

You  will  not  be  surprised  to  hear  of  my  telling  them  that  of  these 
five,  thus  overtopping  all  the  rest,  three  were  born  in  the  State  of 
Virginia ;  nor  wonder  that  I  reverently  remember  that  two  of  them 
lie,  side  by  side,  here  in  Lexington,  while  one  is  sleeping  by  the  great 
river,  there  to  sleep  till  time  shall  be  no  more — the  three  consecra 
ting  in  death  the  soil  of  Virginia,  as  in  life  they  stamped  their 
mother  State  as  the  native  home  of  men  who,  living  as  they  lived, 
shall  be  fit  to  go  on  quest  for  the  Holy  Grail. 

And  now  I  hope  I  may  be  able  to  tell  you  what  evidences  of  this 


196  Stonewall  Jackson. 

accredited  greatness — what  warrant  for  the  justness  of  this  ver 
dict — I,  and  others  with  me,  saw  in  the  quiet  of  the  camp  and  in 
the  rush  of  the  battle ;  and  how  I  saw  with  my  own  eyes,  and  stand 
here  to  declare,  that  his  greatness  vanished  not  nor  faded,  but  the 
brighter  shone,  when  the  shadows  of  evening  were  falling  and  the 
darkness  of  death  gathered  around  him. 

In  seeking  to  define  Jackson's  place  in  history  I  accept  Lord 
Wolseley's  definition  of  a  great  commander.  He  declares,  in  effect, 
that  the  mark  of  this  rare  character  are :  First  of  all,  the  power — 
the  instinct,  the  inspiration — to  divine  the  condition  and  the  pur 
poses  of  your  enemy.  Secondly,  the  genius  that  in  strategy  in 
stantly  devises  the  combinations  most  likely  to  defeat  those  pur 
poses.  Thirdly,  the  physical  and  moral  courage — the  absolute  self- 
reliance — that  takes  the  risk  of  decision,  and  the  skill  that  promptly 
and  properly  delivers  the  blow  that  shatters  the  hostile  plans,  so 
managing  one's  own  forces  (even  when  small)  as  to  have  the 
greater  number  at  the  point  of  attack.  Fourthly,  the  cool  judg 
ment  that  is  unshaken  by  the  clash  and  clamor  of  emergencies. 
And  last,  but  not  least,  the  provision — the  caution — that  cares  for 
the  lives  and  well-being  of  the  private  soldiers,  and  the  personal 
magnetism  that  rouses  the  enthusiasm  and  affection,  that  makes  the 
commander's  presence  on  the  battle-field  the  incentive  to  all  that 
human  beings  can  dare,  and  the  unquestioned  hope  and  sure  prom 
ise  of  victory. 

Many  incidents  of  Jackson's  career  prove  that  he  possessed  the 
instinctive  power  to  know  the  plight,  and  to  foretell  the  purposes 
of  the  Federal  army  and  its  commanders.  To  describe  the  first 
that  I  recall:  While  dressing  his  wounded  hand  at  the  first 
Manassas,  at  the  field-hospital  of  the  brigade  at  Young's  Branch, 
near  the  Lewis  House,  I  saw  President  Davis  ride  up  from  Manas 
sas.  He  had  been  told  by  stragglers  that  our  army  had  been  de 
feated.  He  stopped  his  horse  in  the  middle  of  the  little  stream, 
stood  up  in  his  stirrups  (the  palest,  sternest  face  I  ever  saw)  and 
cried  to  the  great  crowd  of  soldiers  "  I  am  President  Davis — follow 
me  back  to  the  field."  General  Jackson  did  not  hear  distinctly.  I 
told  him  who  it  was  and  what  he  said.  He  stood  up,  took  off  his 


Stonewall  Jackson.  197 

cap  and  cried,  "  We  have  whipped  them — they  ran  like  sheep. 
Give  me  10,000  men  and  I  will  take  Washington  City  to-morrow." 
Who  doubts  now  that  he  could  have  done  so  ? 

When,  in  May,  1862,  he  whipped  Banks  at  Winchester,  and  had, 
what  seemed  then  and  even  now,  the  audacity  to  follow  him  to  Har 
per's  Ferry,  he  not  only  knew  the  number  and  condition  of  Banks's 
army,  but  in  his  mind  he  clearly  saw,  the  locality  and  strength  of 
the  armies  of  Fremont  and  McDowell,  gradually  converging  from 
the  east  and  west  towards  Strasburg  to  cut  off  his  retreat.  He 
knew  the  leaders  of  these  hostile  forces,  their  skill  and  moral 
courage,  and  calculated  on  it,  and  this  so  nicely  that  he  was  able  to 
pass  between  them  without  a  moment  to  spare.  Indeed,  he  held 
these  hosts  apart,  with  his  skirmishers,  while  his  main  army  passed 
through,  each  commander  of  the  Federal  army  in  doubt  and  dread 
whether  the  mighty  and  mysterious  Jackson  intended  one  of  his 
overwhelming  blows  for  him ;  both,  doubtless,  hoping  the  other  one 
would  catch  it.  Certainly  they  acted  in  a  way  to  indicate  this. 

With  the  help  of  Ashby  and  Stuart,  he  always  knew  the  location 
and  strength  of  his  enemy.  He  knew  the  fighting  quality  of 
the  enemy's  forces,  too.  "  Let  the  Federals  get  very  close,"  he  said 
to  Ewell  at  Cross  Keys,  "  before  your  infantry  fires,  they  won't  stand 
long."  I  asked  him  at  Cedar  Run  if  he  expected  a  battle  that  day. 
He  smiled  and  said,  "  Banks  is  in  our  front  and  he  is  generally  will 
ing  to  fight,"  "  and,"  he  added  very  slowly  and,  as  if  to  himself, 
"  and  he  generally  gets  whipped." 

At  Malvern  Hill,  when  a  portion  of  our  army  had  been  beaten  and, 
to  some  extent  demoralized,  Hill  and  Swell  and  Early  came  to  tell 
him  they  could  make  no  resistance  if  McClellan  attacked  them  in 
the  morning.  It  was  difficult  to  wake  General  Jackson,  as  he  was 
exhausted  and  very  sound  asleep.  I  tried  it  myself,  and  after  many 
efforts  partly  succeeded.  When  he  was  made  to  understand  what 
was  wanted,  he  said  "  McClellan  and  his  army  will  be  gone  by  day 
light,"  and  went  to  sleep  again.  The  generals  thought  him  mad, 
but  the  prediction  was  true. 

At  Sharpsburg,  when  on  the  17th,  our  army  had  repulsed  three 


198  Stonewall  Jackson. 

great  assaults  in  succession  and  was  reduced  to  a  thin  line,  happen 
ing  to  have  urgent  business  that  took  me  to  the  front,  I  expressed  to 
General  Jackson  my  apprehension  lest  the  surging  mass  of  the 
enemy  might  get  through.  He  replied,  "  I  think  they  have  done 
their  worst  and  there  is  now  no  danger  of  the  line  being  broken." 
McClellan's  inaction  during  the  long  18th,  when  General  Lee  stood 
firm  and  offered  him  battle,  proves  that  Jackson  knew  his  enemy's 
condition. 

At  Fredericksburg,  after  Burnside's  repulse,  he  asked  me  how 
many  bandages  I  had.  I  told  him,  and  asked  why  he  wanted  to 
know?  He  said  he  wanted  to  have  a  piece  of  white  cloth  to  tie 
on  each  man's  arm  that  his  soldiers  might  recognize  each  other  in  a 
night  attack,  and  he  asked  to  be  allowed  to  make  such  an  attack 
and  drive  the  foe  into  the  swollen  river  or  capture  him.  Subsequent 
events  demonstrated  that  he  would  have  accomplished  his  purpose. 

It  was  said  that  at  a  council  of  war,  called  by  General  Lee  after 
the  Fredericksburg  battle,  Jackson  went  to  sleep  during  the  discus 
sion,  and  when  suddenly  aroused  and  asked  for  his  advice  he  sim 
ply  replied  "  Drive  them  into  the  river." 

That  he  possessed  the  genius  to  devise  and  the  skill  and  courage 
to  deliver  the  blow  needed  to  defeat  his  foes;  is  this  not  amply 
proved  by  the  fact,  that  his  army  in  the  Valley  campaign  was  never 
over  17,000,  and  generally  less,  and  that  for  a  time,  he  was  keeping 
at  bay  100,000  Federal  soldiers — 60,000  in  or  near  the  great  Valley, 
and  40,000  at  Fredericksburg — soundly  thrashing  in  the  field,  from 
time  to  time,  large  portions  of  this  great  army?  Not  to  mention 
details,  Jackson  and  his  small  force  influenced  the  campaign  to  the 
extent  of  keeping  100,000  Federal  troops  away  from  Eichmond,  and 
in  compelling  the  Federal  Government  to  employ  a  larger  force  than 
the  whole  of  the  Confederate  army,  in  order,  as  Lincoln  said,  "  to 
protect  the  National  Capital."  In  the  operations  necessary  to  accom 
plish  this  result,  he  encountered  one  (his  first  and  only)  defeat — 
that  at  Kernstown,  which  he  and  others,  who  trusted  his  judgment 
believed  was  due  to  an  untimely  order  to  fall  back,  given  by  one 
of  his  bravest  and  truest  brigade  commanders.  But  that  defeat 


Stonewall  Jackson.  199 

was  so  full  of  brilliant  results  to  our  cause  that  the  Confederate 
Congress  thanked  him  for  the  battle.  The  gallant  and  brilliant 
officer  who  gave  this  order  was  put  under  arrest  (whether  wisely  or 
not  is  not  for  present  discussion) ,  but  the  effect  was  to  prevent  any 
other  man  or  officer  from  ordering  a  retreat  on  any  subsequent  field 
of  battle  where  Jackson  was,  whether  out  of  ammunition  or  not. 
Thence  he  went  immediately  to  McDowell,  Winchester,  Cross  Keys 
and  Port  Eepublic,  winning  battle  after  battle,  having  always  the 
smaller  army,  but  the  larger  number  actually  fighting  (except  at 
Cross  Keys),  illustrating  the  truth  of  what  a  Federal  officer  tells 
us  a  Yankee  soldier  said  after  the  stern  struggle  at  Groveton: 
"  These  rebels  always  put  their  small  numbers  in  strong  positions 
and  then  manage  to  be  the  stronger  at  the  point  where  the  rub 
comes."  And  so,  notwithstanding  the  tremendous  odds  against 
him  in  the  whole  theatre  of  action,  he  met  another  test  of  a  great 
commander,  in  concentrating  against  his  opponent  the  larger  force. 
I  cannot  give  you  any  instances  or  illustrations  of  the  mental 
action  by  which  he  reached  his  conclusions  or  devised  the  combina 
tions  which  defeated  his  enemy;  for  Jackson  took  no  counsel  save 
with  his  "familiar,"  the  Genius  of  War,  and  his  God.  He  did 
hold  one,  and  only  one  council  of  war.  In  March,  1862,  at  Win 
chester,  Jackson  had  in  his  small  army  less  than  5,000  men.  Gen 
eral  Banks,  who  was  advancing  upon  Winchester  from  Harper's 
Ferry  and  Charlestown,  had  30,000  men.  General  Jackson  repeat 
edly  offered  General  Banks  battle,  but  the  latter  declined,  and  on  the 
night  of  the  llth  of  March  went  into  camp  four  miles  from  Win 
chester.  General  Jackson  sent  for  his  officers  and  proposed  to  make 
a  night  attack,  but  the  plan  was  not  approved  by  the  council.  He 
sent  for  the  officers  a  second  time,  some  hours  later,  and  again  urged 
them  to  agree  to  make  the  night  assault,  but  they  again  disapproved 
of  the  attempt.  So,  late  in  the  afternoon,  we  withdrew  from  Win 
chester  and  marched  to  Newtown.  I  rode  with  the  General  as  we 
left  the  place,  and  as  we  reached  a  high  point  overlooking  the  town, 
we  both  turned  to  look  at  Winchester,  just  evacuated  and  now  left 
to  the  mercy  of  the  Federal  soldiers.  I  think  that  a  man  may  some- 


200  Stonewall  Jackson. 

times  yield  to  overwhelming  emotion,  and  I  was  utterly  overcome 
by  the  fact  that  I  was  leaving  all  that  I  held  dear  on  earth,  but  my 
emotion  was  arrested  by  one  look  at  Jackson.  His  face  was  fairly 
blazing  with  the  fire  that  was  burning  in  him,,  and  I  felt  awed  be 
fore  him.  Presently  he  cried  out  with  a  manner  almost  savage, 
"  That  is  the  last  council  of  war  I  will  ever  hold !"  And  it  was — 
his  first  and  last.  Thereafter  he  held  council  in  the  secret  cham 
bers  of  his  own  heart,  and  acted.  Instantaneous  decision,  abso 
lute  self-reliance,  every  action,  every  word  displayed.  His  voice 
displayed  it  in  battle.  It  was  not  the  peal  of  the  trumpet,  but  the 
sharp  crack  of  the  rifle — sudden,  imperative,  resolute. 

I  venture  a  word  as  to  a  battle  in  which  Jackson's  conduct  has 
been  criticised.  The  delay  at  Games'  Mill  has  been  the  subject  of 
much  comment.  The  truth  is,  that  General  Lee  directed  Jackson 
to  place  his  corps  on  our  extreme  left,  where  he  would  be  joined  by 
the  command  of  D.  H.  Hill.  He  ordered  him  to  form  in  line  of 
battle  with  Hill  and  wait  until  McClellan  retreated  towards  the 
Pamunkey,  and  then  to  strike  him  a  side  blow  and  capture  him. 
For  this  purpose  Jackson  had,  with  HilPs  division,  25,500  men. 
When  we  arrived  at  Games'  Mill,  D.H.Hill  had  engaged  the  enemy. 
Jackson,  obeying  Lee's  instructions,  sent  an  aide  to  inform  Hill  of 
the  orders  of  the  Commander-in-Chief,  and  it  was  with  some  diffi 
culty  that  he  withdrew  him  from  the  fight.  It  was  only  when 
Jackson  found  that  McClellan  was  not  being  driven  from  his  works 
he  put  into  the  battle  every  man  he  had. 

General  Jackson  waited  at  White  Oak  Swamp  during  the  battle 
of  Frazier's  Farm  because  he  was  directed  to  stay  on  this  road  until 
further  orders.  As  a  soldier  he  could  do  nothing  else.  He  gave 
the  same  unquestioned  obedience  to  the  officer  above  him,  that  he 
demanded  of  those  under  him.  Moreover,  the  stream  was  impass 
able  for  infantry  under  fire,  and  impassable  for  artillery  with 
out  a  bridge.  Jackson  and  his  staff,  with  Colonel  Munford's 
cavalry,  tested  it,  riding  across  through  quagmires  that  took  us  up 
to  the  girths  of  our  horses ;  but  by  a  fierce  artillery  attack  he  kept 
Franklin's  and  part  of  Sumner's  corps  from  joining  with  Me  Call 
to  resist  the  attack  at  Frazier's  Farm.  This  attack  General  Jack- 


Stonewall  Jackson.  201 

son  began  with  twenty-eight  pieces  of  artillery  at  12  o'clock  that 
day.  The  battle  at  Frazier's  Farm  began  at  5  o'clock  the  same 
afternoon.  White  Oak  Swamp  road  is  but  five  miles  distant.  If 
General  Lee  had  wanted  Jackson  he  could  have  sent  for  him,  but 
General  Lee  did  not  want  him.  He  expected  to  defeat  McCall,  and 
isolate  Franklin  and  Sumner,  and  then  capture  them  with  Jackson's 
co-operation  from  the  position  he  knew  he  occupied. 

Cedar  Eun  battle  has  been  criticised  as  a  barren  victory,  but 
while  it  did  not  accomplish  all  that  Jackson  intended,  it  was  far 
from  barren  in  its  results.  Pope,  who  had  more  than  double  the 
force  of  Jackson,  was  preparing  to  attack  us  at  Gordonsville  and 
destroy  the  railroad.  We  remained  two  weeks  at  Gordonsville, 
waiting  for  Pope  to  make  a  false  move,  when,  finding  that  Pope's 
divisions  were  widely  separated — the  left  wing  being  at  Fredericks- 
burg  and  the  right  under  Siegel  at  Sperryville,  fifty-five  miles  from 
the  left  wing,  the  main  army  on  the  Eappahannock,  with  Banks 
thrown  out  to  Culpeper  Courthouse — Jackson  determined  to  strike 
them  in  detail.  I  know  this  was  his  purpose  and  his  subsequent  re 
port  proves  it.  He  intended  first  to  attack  his  old  antagonist,  Banks, 
at  Culpeper,  and  then  to  descend  like  a  thunderbolt  on  McDowell  at 
Fredericksburg.  On  our  route  we  lost  an  entire  day  because  one  of 
the  division  commanders  marched  two  miles  instead  of  twenty-five. 
This  gave  Pope  time  to  concentrate  his  forces.  That  night,  as  we 
pursued  the  beaten  army  of  General  Banks,  we  captured  some  of 
McDowell's  men,  proving  that  the  Federals  had  had  time  to  con 
centrate,  and  this  prevented  him  from  carrying  out  his  original 
plan  of  striking  them  in  detail.  As  it  was,  Banks's  army  was  so 
crippled  as  to  be  "  of  little  use,"  as  General  Pope  reports,  "  during 
the  rest  of  that  campaign."  The  prestige  of  our  troops  and  com 
manders  was  raised,  and  the  Federal  confidence  in  Pope  diminished. 
But,  more  than  this,  and  more  important,  Pope's  plans  were  dis 
concerted  and  ten  days  were  gained,  by  which  time  General  Lee  and 
the  rest  of  our  army  joined  us. 

The  imperturbable  coolness  of  a  great  commander  was  pre-emi 
nently  his.  He  was  always  calm  and  self  controlled.  He  never 
lost  his  balance  for  one  moment.  At  first  Manassas,  when  we 


202  Stonewall  Jackson. 

reached  the  field  and  found  our  men  under  Bee  and  Bartow  falling 
back — when  the  confusion  was  greatest,  and  Bee  in  despair  cried 
out  <(  They  are  driving  us  back  " — there  was  not  the  slightest  emo 
tion  apparent  about  Jackson.  His  thin  lips  were  compressed  and 
his  eyes  ablaze  when  he  curtly  said,  "  Then,  sir,  we  will  give  them 
the  bayonet."  At  Port  Republic,  where  he  was  so  nearly  captured, 
as  he  escaped  he  instantly  ordered  the  Thirty-seventh  Virginia  regi 
ment,  which  was  fortunately  near  at  hand  and  in  line,  to  charge 
through  the  bridge  and  capture  the  Federal  piece  of  artillery  placed 
at  its  mouth. 

In  the  severe  engagement  at  Chantilly,  fought  during  a 
heavy  thunder-storm,  when  the  sound  of  the  artillery  of  heaven 
could  scarcely  be  distinguished  from  that  of  the  army,  an  aide  came 
up  with  a  message  from  A.  P.  Hill  that  his  ammunition  was  wet 
and  that  he  asked  leave  to  retire.  "  Give  my  compliments  to  Gen 
eral  Hill,  and  tell  him  that  the  Yankee  ammunition  is  as  wet  as  his ; 
to  stay  where  he  is."  There  was  always  danger  and  blood  when  he 
began  his  terse  sentences  with  "  Give  my  compliments." 

One  of  the  most  striking  illustrations  of  his  courage  and  absolute 
self-reliance  was  shown  at  the  battle  of  Groveton.  He  had  been  de 
tached  from  General  Lee's  army,  and  in  a  march  of  two  days  cap 
tured  Manassas  Junction,  directly  in  Pope's  rear,  and  destroyed 
the  immense  stores  accumulated  at  that  point.  After  this  he 
marched  his  command  to  a  field  which  gave  him  a  good  defensive 
position  and  the  readiest  means  of  joining  with  Longstreet.  At 
that  point,  if  he  was  compelled  to  retreat,  he  had  the  Aldie  Gap  be 
hind  him,  through  which  he  could  pass  and  rejoin  General  Lee. 
Pope,  disappointed  at  not  finding  Jackson  at  Manassas,  and  con 
fused  by  the  different  movements  that  different  portions  of  Jack 
son's  corps  had  made,  was  utterly  disconcerted  and  directed  his 
army  to  move  towards  Centreville,  where  they  could  easily  join  with 
the  forces  of  McClellan,  then  at  Alexandria.  Almost  any  other 
soldier  would  have  been  satisfied  with  what  had  already  been  accom 
plished — the  destruction  of  the  immense  stores  of  the  enemy,  the 
forcing  of  Pope  from  the  Eappahannock  to  Bull  Eun,  and  the  de 
moralization  produced  in  the  Federal  army — but  General  Jackson 


Stonewall  Jackson.  203 

knew  that  the  Confederate  design  demanded  that  a  battle  with  Pope 
should  be  made  before  reinforcements  were  received  from  McClel 
lan,  and  so  he  determined  with  his  little  army  to  attack  the  Fed 
eral  forces  and  compel  them  to  stop  and  give  battle.  Our  army  lay 
concealed  by  the  railroad  cut,  the  woods  and  the  configuration  of 
the  ground,  near  the  same  field  on  which  we  had  fought  the  first 
battle  of  Manassas.  The  different  columns  of  the  enemy  were  mov 
ing  in  such  a  confused  way  that  it  was  difficult  to  tell  what  they  in 
tended.  General  Jackson,  who  had  been  up  the  whole  of  the  pre 
vious  night  directing  the  movements  of  his  troops,  was  asleep  in  a 
fence-corner,  when  mounted  scouts  came  in  to  inform  us  that  a 
large  body  of  Pope's  army  was  moving  by  us  on  the  Warrenton  road 
and  in  the  direction  of  Centreville.  As  soon  as  he  was  waked  up 
and  informed  of  the  state  of  affairs,  General  Jackson  sprang  up 
and  moved  rapidly  towards  his  horse,  buckling  on  his  sword  as  he 
moved,  and  urging  the  greatest  speed  on  all  around  him,  he  directed 
Ewell  and  Taliaferro  to  attack  the  enemy,  which  proved  to  be 
King's  division.  With  about  20,000  men  he  attacked  Pope's  army 
of  77,000  men,  so  determined  was  he  that  Pope  should  not  escape  to 
Centreville,  there  to  intrench  and  wait  for  the  reinforcements  of 
McClellan,  then  on  their  way  to  him.  The  attack  that  evening 
brought  on  the  bloody  battle  of  Groveton. 

I  must  recur  to  the  battle  of  Sharpsburg,  as  that  was  one  of  the 
sternest  trials  to  which  Jackson  was  ever  subjected.  Eighty  thou 
sand  Federal  soldiers  under  McClellan  attacked  35,000  Con 
federates  under  Lee,  making  the  contest  a  most  unequal  one.  It 
was  a  pitched  battle  in  an  open  field.  There  were  no  fortifications 
or  entrenchments,  and  the  ground,  as  far  as  sites  for  artillery  went, 
was  decidedly  more  favorable  for  the  Federals.  To  defend  the  left 
wing  of  the  Confederate  line,  Jackson  had,  including  D.  H.  Hill's 
three  brigades,  less  than  8,000  men.  In  front  of  him'  was  Hooker 
with  15,000,  Mansfield  with  10,000,  and  Sumner  with  Sedgwick's 
division,  6,000—8,000  Confederates  to  31,000  veteran  Federal  sol 
diers.  Hooker,  at  daylight,  attacked  and  was  routed.  Then  Mans 
field  came  over  the  same  ground  and  met  the  same  fate.  Then 
Sumner  came  up  and  was  thrashed.  Eight  thousand  half-starved, 


204:  Stonewall  Jackson. 

shoeless,  ragged  Confederates  had  routed  31,000  of  McClellan's  best 
soldiers,  and  in  a  plain  open  field  without  an  entrenchment.  But 
the  8,000  Confederates  were  veterans  and  were  commanded  by 
Stonewall  Jackson.  That  night  20,000  dead  and  wounded  men 
lay  on  the  field  of  Sharpsburg. 

About  one  o'clock1  that  day  I  rode  forward  to  see  the  General.  I 
found  him  a  little  to  the  left  of  the  Dunkard  church.  I  remember 
that  I  had  my  saddle-pockets  filled  with  peaches  to  take  to  him — 
knowing  how  much  he  enjoyed  fruit — and  was  eating  a  peach  when 
I  approached  him.  The  first  thing  he  asked  me  was,  if  I  had  any 
more.  I  told  him  yes,  that  I  had  brought  him  some.  After  he 
got  them  he  began  to  eat  them  ravenously,  so  much  so,  that  he 
apologized  and  told  me  he  had  had  nothing  to  eat  that  day.  I  told 
him  why  I  had  come.  That  our  lines  were  so  thin  and  the  enemy 
so  strong  that  I  was  afraid  that  at  some  point  our  line  might  be 
broken,  and,  in  the  rush,  the  hospital  captured.  He  was  perfectly 
cool  and  quiet,  although  he  had  withstood  three  separate  attacks  of 
vastly  superior  numbers.  He  thought  the  enemy  had  done  their 
worst  and  made  me  the  reply  I  have  already  quoted,  but  he  agreed 
that  I  should  establish  the  hospital  in  Shepherdstown.  Before  re 
turning  to  my  post  I  rode  forward  with  him  to  see  the  old  Stone 
wall  Division.  They  had  been  reduced  to  a  very  small  body  of  men 
and  were  commanded  by  Colonel  Grigsby.  In  some  cases  lieu 
tenants  commanded  brigades  and  sergeants,  regiments.  Nearly  all 
his  generals  had  fallen,  but  he  had  two  left  who  were  hosts  within 
themselves — the  unconquerable  D.  H.  Hill,  and  that  grand  old  sol 
dier,  Jubal  Early.  While  talking  to  Grigsby  I  saw,  at  a  distance  in 
a  field,  men  lying  down,  and  supposed  it  was  a  line  of  battle.  I 
asked  Colonel  Grigsby,  Why  he  did  not  move  that  line  of  battle  to 
make  it  conform  to  his  own?  He  said  "Those  men  you  see 
lying  over  there,  which  you  suppose  to  be  a  line  of  battle,  are  all 
dead  men.  They  are  Georgia  soldiers/'  It  was  a  hard  struggle, 
but  Jackson  always  expected  to  hold  his  lines.  I  heard  him  once 
say  "  We  sometimes  fail  to  drive  the  enemy  from  his  position.  He 
always  fails  to  drive  us."  But  he  was  never  content  with  the  de 
fensive,  however  successful  or  however  exhausting.  In  this  most 


Stonewall  Jackson.  205 

destructive  battle  he  was  looking  all  of  that  day  for  a  chance  to 
make  the  counter-stroke.  He  urged  General  McLaws,  who  had 
been  sent  to  his  assistance,  to  move  forward  and  attack  the  enemy's 
right  flank.,  but  McLaws  was  so  hotly  engaged  with  those  directly 
in  his  front  that  he  never  had  an  opportunity  to  do  what  General 
Jackson  desired.  Other  efforts,  with  the  same  intent,  marked  his 
conduct  during  all  that  day. 

His  tactics  were  mostly  offensive,  and  by  his  marvelous  strategy 
and  skill,  by  his  consummate  daring  and  absolute  confidence  in 
himself  and  his  men,  he  made  up  for  his  deficiency  in  numbers. 
When  circumstances  obliged  him  to  act  on  the  defensive,  he  always 
at  such  times  kept  in  view  the  counter-stroke.  He  did  not  wish 
to  fight  at  Fredericksburg.  His  objection  was,  that  there  was  no 
room  for  this  return  blow  in  the  day-time,  with  the  enemy's  guns 
on  Stafford  Heights. 

1  cannot  refrain  from  speaking  of  the  statement,  recently  made, 
that  General  Jackson  advised  General  Lee  on  the  night  of  the  17th 
of  September  to  recross  the  Potomac  into  Virginia.  I  think  it  is 
a  mistake.  He  told  me  at  one  o'clock  that  McClellan  had  done  his 
worst.  He  was  looking  all  the  afternoon  for  a  chance  to  strike  the 
enemy,  but  he  never  had  sufficient  force  to  do  it.  He  agreed  with 
General  Lee  entirely  during  the  whole  of  this  campaign,  and  es 
pecially  during  this  battle.  General  Lee  writes,  in  a  letter  which  I 
have  recently  read:  "When  he  (Jackson)  came  upon  the  field, 
having  preceded  his  troops,  and  learned  my  reasons  for  offering 
battle,  he  emphatically  agreed  with  me.  When  I  determined  to 
withdraw  and  cross  the  Potomac,  he  also  agreed  and  said,  in  view  of 
all  the  circumstances,  it  was  better  to  have  fought  the  battle  in 
Maryland  than  to  have  left  it  without  a  struggle."  I  say  it  with  all 
possible  deference  to  a  distinguished  soldier  and  most  respected 
gentleman,  but  there  is  every  indication  that  General  Stephen  D. 
Lee's  recollection  as  to  Jackson's  having  proposed  to  cross  the  river 
on  the  night  of  the  17th  is  at  fault.  He  says,  at  the  interview  he 
reports,  that  Longstreet  came  first  and  made  his  report.  Long- 
street  says  in  his  book  that  he  was  the  last  to  come.  General  Lee's 
letter,  above  referred  to,  shows  the  entire  concurrence  between  him- 


206  Stonewall  Jackson. 

self  and  General  Jackson  with  respect  to  their  movements  both  be 
fore  and  after  the  battle.  That  General  Jackson  should  have  ad 
vised  Lee,  without  being  asked,  to  cross  the  river  the  night  of  the 
17th  is  entirely  at  variance  with  his  character.  It  was  a  liberty  he 
certainly  never  would  have  permitted  one  of  his  subordinates  to 
take  with  him. 

As  for  his  care  for  the  lives  of  his  men,,  the  great  military  critics, 
whose  opinions  I  have  quoted,  told  me  that  in  this  respect,  especially, 
appeared  the  superiority  of  the  Valley  campaign  to  the  Italian  cam 
paigns  of  Napoleon.  While  the  strategetical  combinations  were 
equally  rapid  and  effective,  the  successes  were  attained  with  a  pro 
portion  of  loss  to  numbers  engaged  comparatively  small.  In  the 
whole  Valley  campaign  his  losses  did  not  exceed  2,500  men.  His 
care  was  not  only  for  numbers  but  for  individuals.  It  was  my 
habit  to  tell  him  after  a  battle  the  whole  sad  story  of  the  losses,  as 
they  came  under  my  observation.  He  always  waited  for  this  de 
tailed  report,  and  when  I  was  delayed  he  would  order  that  he  should 
be  waked  up  when  I  came  in.  Presently  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
show  you  how,  from  time  to  time,  he  received  such  news.  His  com 
missaries  and  quartermasters  know  how  minutely  he  looked  into  all 
the  details  of  their  departments.  To  give  only  one  illustration  of 
his  care  for  his  soldiers.  I  remember  in  our  march  to  the  rear  of 
Pope's  army,  which  we  made  without  any  supply  train,  he  called 
for  two  of  his  officers,  and  sent  them  with  a  squad  of  cavalry  ahead 
of  his  army  to  tell  the  people  he  was  coming  and  to  ask  them  to 
send  some  provisions  to  his  men.  The  people  responded  nobly  to 
this  appeal  and  brought  liberal  supplies  of  flour  and  meat  and  other 
things  to  the  troops,  and  Jackson  recognized  the  fact  that  these 
officers  and  the  people  had  done  a  good  service  that  day. 

Had  he  the  personal  magnetism  that  characterizes  a  great  com 
mander?  Did  he  arouse  the  enthusiasm  of  his  men?  What  army 
ever  had  more  unbounded  confidence  in  its  general,  than  did  the 
army  of  Jackson  ?  And  what  general  ever  trusted  and  depended  on 
his  army  more  than  Jackson  ?  Jackson  knew  the  value  of  the  South 
ern  volunteer  better  and  sooner  (as  I  believe)  than  any  other  of  our 
great  leaders.  When  General  Johnston  took  command  at  Harper's 


Stonewall  Jackson.  207 

Ferry,,  the  general  staff  went  with  the  command.  One  day  when 
the  Second  Virginia  regiment,  composed  of  men  from  my  county, 
marched  by,  I  said  to  him,  "  If  these  men  of  the  Second  Virginia 
will  not  fight,  you  have  no  troops  that  will."  He  expressed  the 
prevalent  but  afterward  changed  opinion  of  that  early  day  in  his 
reply,  saying,  "  I  would  not  give  one  company  of  regulars  for  the 
whole  regiment."  When  I  returned  to  General  Jackson's  staff  I 
had  occasion  to  quote  to  him  General  Johnston's  opinion.  "  Did  he 
say  that  ?  "  he  asked,  "  and  of  those  splendid  men  ?  "  And  then 
he  added,  "  The  patriot  volunteer,  fighting  for  country  and  his 
rights  makes  the  most  reliable  soldier  on  earth."  Was  the  confi 
dence  returned?  When,  at  sight  of  him,  the  battle-shout  of  fight 
ing  thousands  shook  the  far  heavens,  who  could  doubt  its  mean 
ing?  Did  his  men  love  him?  What  need  of  proof  or  illustra 
tion?  Do  we  not  feel  it  to-day  in  every  throb  of  our  hearts, 
though  the  long  years  have  rolled  away,  though  three  and  one- 
half  decades  have  done  their  sad  work  of  effacement? 

I  would  like  to  show  you  Jackson  as  a  man,  for  I  think  that 
only  those  who  were  near  him  knew  him;  and  to  them  the  pic 
ture  of  him  as  a  man  with  the  heart  of  a  man  is  nobler — his 
memory  as  a  true  Christian  gentleman  is  dearer — and  he  him 
self  is  greater — than  he  seemed  even  as  a  soldier.  Under  a 
grave  and  generally  serious  manner,  sometimes  almost  stern, 
there  were  strong  human  passions  dominated  by  his  iron  will — 
there  was  also  intense  earthly  ambition.  The  first  time  I  was  under 
fire,  the  attempt  to  diagnose  my  feelings  did  not  discover  any 
thing  that  I  recognized  as  positive  enjoyment.  I  was  not  clearly 
and  unmistakably  conscious  of  that  feeling  until  after  I  got  out 
of  it.  I  told  General  Jackson  frankly  what  my  feelings  were, 
and  asked  him  how  he  felt  the  first  time  he  experienced  it.  Just 
a  glimpse  of  his  inner  nature  flashed  forth  in  a  most  unusual 
expression.  "  Afraid  the  fire  would  not  be  hot  enough  for  me 
to  distinguish  myself,"  he  promptly  replied. 

There  was  in  this  great  soldier  a  deep  love  for  all  that  is  true, 
for  the  beautiful,  for  the  poetry  of  life,  and  a  wealth  of  rich 
and  quick  imagination  for  which  few  would  give  him  credit. 


208  Stonewall  Jackson. 

Ambition!  Yes,  far  beyond  what  ordinary  men  possess.  And 
yet,  he  told  me,  when  talking  in  my  tent  one  dreary  winter  night 
near  Charlestown,  that  he  would  not  exchange  one  moment  of 
his  life  hereafter  for  all  the  earthly  glory  he  could  win.  I  would 
not  tell  these  things  except  that  it  is  good  for  you  and  your  chil 
dren  that  you  should  know  what  manner  of  man  Stonewall  Jack 
son  was. 

His  views  of  war  and  of  its  necessities  were  of  the  sternest.  "  War 
means  fighting;  to  fight  is  the  duty  of  a  soldier;  march  swiftly, 
strike  the  foe  with  all  your  strength  and  take  away  from  him 
everything  you  can.  Injure  him  in  every  possible  way,  and  do 
it  quickly."  He  talked  to  me  several  times  about  the  "black 
flag,"  and  wondered  if  in  the  end  it  would  not  result  in  less  suf 
fering,  and  loss  of  life;  but  he  never  advocated  it. 

A  sad  incident  of  the  battle  of  Fredericksburg  stirred  him  very 
deeply.  As  we  stood  that  night  at  our  camp,  waiting  for  some 
one  to  take  our  horses,  he  looked  up  at  the  sky  for  a  moment  and 
said,  "  How  horrible  is  war ! "  I  replied,  ''  Yes,  horrible,  but 
what  can  we  do?  These  people  at  the  North,  without  any  war 
rant  of  law,  have  invaded  our  country,  stolen  our  property,  in 
sulted  our  defenceless  women,  hung  and  imprisoned  our  helpless 
old  men,  behaved  in  many  cases  like  an  organized  band  of  cut 
throats  and  robbers.  What  can  we  do  ? "  "  Do,"  he  answered, 
and  his  voice  was  ringing,  "  Do ;  why  shoot  them."  At  Port  Ee- 
public,  an  officer  commanding  a  regiment  of  Federal  soldiers  and 
riding  a  snow-white  horse,  was  very  conspicuous  for  his  gallantry. 
He  frequently  exposed  himself  to  the  fire  of  our  men  in  tho 
most  reckless  way.  So  splendid  was  this  man's  courage  that  Gen 
eral  Ewell,  one  of  the  most  chivalrous  gentlemen  I  ever  knew,  at 
some  risk  to  his  own  life,  rode  down  our  line  and  called  to  his 
men  not  to  shoot  the  man  on  the  white  horse.  After  a  little 
while,  however,  the  officer  and  his  white  horse  went  down.  A  day 
or  so  after,  when  General  Jackson  learned  of  the  incident,  he  sent 
for  General  Ewell,  and  told  him  not  to  do  such  a  thing  again; 
that  this  was  no  ordinary  war,  and  the  brave  and  gallant  Federal 


Stonewall  Jackson.  209 

officers  were  the  very  kind  that  must  be  killed.  Shoot  the  brave 
officers  and  the  cowards  will  run  away  and  take  the  men  with 
them. 

His  temper,  though  capable  of  being  stirred  to  profoundest 
depths,  was  singularly  even.  When  most  provoked  he  showed  no 
great  excitement.  When  the  Secretary  of  War  treated  him  so 
discourteously  that  Jackson  resigned  his  commission,  he  showed 
little  resentment  or  indignation.  He  was  the  only  man  in  the 
army  who  was  not  mad  and  excited.  Two  days  after  Mal- 
vern  Hill,  when  his  staff  did  not  get  up  in  the  morning  as  soon 
as  he  had  ordered  them,  he  quietly  ordered  his  servant,  Jim,  to 
pour  the  coffee  into  the  road,  to  put  the  mess-chest  back  into  the 
wagon  and  to  send  the  wagon  off  with  the  train,  and  Jim 
did  it;  but  he  showed  no  temper,  and  several  days  after, 
when  I  described  the  ludicrous  indignation  of  one  of  his  staff  at 
missing  his  breakfast  that  day,  he  laughed  heartily  over  the  inci 
dent,  for  he  often  showed  a  keen  sense  of  humor;  and  when  he 
laughed  (as  I  often  saw  him  do)  he  did  it  with  his  whole  heart. 
He  would  catch  one  knee  with  both  hands,  lift  it  up,  throw  his 
body  back,  open  his  mouth  wide,  and  his  whole  face  and  form 
would  be  convulsed  with  mirth — but  there  was  no  sound. 

His  consideration  for  his  men  was  very  great,  and  he  often 
visited  the  hospital  with  me  and  spoke  some  words  of  encourage 
ment  to  his  wounded  soldiers.  The  day  after  the  fight  at  Kerns- 
town,  as  we  were  preparing  to  move  further  up  the  Valley,  as  the 
enemy  was  threatening  to  attack  us,  I  said  to  him,  "  I  have  not  been 
able  to  move  all  our  wounded."  He  replied,  "Very  well,  I  will 
stay  here  until  you  do  move  them."  I  have  seen  him  stop  while 
his  army  was  on  the  march  to  help  a  poor  simple  woman  find  her 
son,  when  she  only  knew  that  this  son  was  in  "Jackson's  com 
pany."  He  first  found  out  the  name  of  her  county,  then  the  com 
panies  from  that  county,  and  by  sending  couriers  to  each  com 
pany  he  at  last  found  the  boy  and  brought  him  to  his  mother. 
And  I  can  never  forget  his  kindness  and  gentleness  to  me  when 
I  was  in  great  sorrow  and  trouble.  He  came  to  my  tent  and  spent 
hours  with  me,  comforting  me  in  his  simple,  kindly,  Christian 
14 


210  Stonewall  Jackson. 

way,  showing  a  depth  of  friendship  and  affection  which  can  never 
be  forgotten.  There  is  no  measuring  the  intensity  with  which 
the  very  soul  of  Jackson  burned  in  battle.  Out  of  it  he  was  very 
gentle.  Indeed,  as  I  look  back  on  the  two  years  that  I  was  daily, 
indeed  hourly,  with  him,  his  gentleness  as  a  man,  his  great  kind 
ness,  his  tenderness  to  those  in  trouble  or  affliction — the  tender 
ness  indeed  of  a  woman — impress  me  more  than  his  wonderful 
prowess  as  a  great  warrior. 

A  short  time  before  the  battle  of  Second  Manassas,  there 
came  from  Lexington  to  join  the  "Liberty  Hall"  Volunteers  a  fine 
lad,  whose  parents  lived  there  and  were  dear  friends  of  General 
Jackson.  The  General  asked  him  to  stay  at  his  headquarters 
before  joining  his  company,  and  he  slept  and  messed  with  us. 
We  all  became  much  attached  to  the  young  fellow,  and  Jackson, 
in  his  gentle,  winning  way,  did  his  best  to  make  him  feel  at  home 
and  at  his  ease,  the  lad's  manners  were  so  gentle,  kindly  and  diffi 
dent,  and  his  beardless,  blue-eyed,  boyish  face  was  so  manly  and 
handsome.  Just  before  the  battle  he  reported  for  duty  with  his 
company.  The  night  of  the  day  of  the  great  battle  I  was  telling 
the  General  of  the  wounded  as  we  stood  over  a  fire  where  Jim, 
his  servant,  was  making  some  coffee.  I  mentioned  many  of  the 
wounded  and  their  condition,  and  presently,  calling  by  name 
the  lad  we  all  loved  told  him  he  was  mortally  wounded. 
Jim — faithful,  brave,  big-hearted  Jim,  God  bless  his  memory! — 
rolled  on  the  ground,  groaning  in  his  agony  of  grief;  but  the 
General's  face  was  a  study.  The  muscles  were  twitching  con 
vulsively  and  his  eyes  were  all  aglow.  He  gripped  me  by  the 
shoulder  till  it  hurt  me,  and  in  a  fierce,  threatening  manner, 
asked  why  I  left  the  boy.  In  a  few  seconds  he  recovered  himself, 
turned  and  walked  off  into  the  woods  alone.  He  soon  came 
back,  however,  and  I  continued  my  report  of  the  wounded  and 
the  dead.  We  were  still  sitting  by  the  fire  drinking  the  coffee  out 
of  our  tin  cups  when  I  said,  "We  have  won  this  battle  by  the 
hardest  kind  of  fighting."  He  answered  me  very  gently  and 
softly,  "  No,  no ;  we  have  won  it  by  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God." 


Stonewall  Jackson. 

When  General  Gregg,  of  South  Carolina,  was  wounded  at  Fred- 
ericksburg,  an  interesting  incident  occurred.  General  Jackson 
had  had  a  misunderstanding  with  Gregg,  the  nature  of  which  I  do 
not  know  recall.  The  night  after  this  gallant  gentleman  and 
splendid  soldier,  was  mortally  wounded,  I  told  General  Jackson, 
as  I  generally  did  of  friends  or  prominent  men  who  had  been  killed 
and  wounded.  General  Gregg  was  one  of  the  most  courteous  and 
gallant  gentlemen  I  had  ever  known.  He  exposed  himself  that  day 
in  a  way  that  seemed  unnecessary,  so  much  so,  indeed,  that  Colonel 
Pendleton,  of  Jackson's  Staff,  rode  up  to  him,  and,  knowing  he 
was  quite  deaf,  shouted  to  him  that  the  Yankees  were  shooting 
at  him.  <f  Yes,  sir ;  thank  you,"  he  replied,  "  they  have  been 
doing  so  all  day."  When  I  told  General  Jackson  that  Gregg  was 
badly  wounded,  he  said,  "  I  wish  you  would  go  back  and  see  him ; 
I  want  you  to  see  him."  I  demurred  a  little,  saying  it  had  not 
been  very  long  since  I  had  seen  him,  and  that  there  was  nothing 
more  to  be  done  for  him.  He  said,  "  I  wish  you  to  go  back  and  see 
him,  and  tell  him  I  sent  you."  So  I  rode  back  to  the  Yerby  House, 
saw  General  Gregg,  and  gave  him  the  message.  When  I  left  his 
bedside  and  had  gotten  into  the  hall  of  the  house  I  met  General 
Jackson,  who  must  have  ridden  close  behind  me,  to  have  arrived 
there  so  soon.  He  stopped  me,  asked  about  General  Gregg  and 
went  into  the  room  to  see  him.  No  one  else  was  in  the  room,  and 
what  passed  between  the  two  officers  will  never  be  known.  I 
waited  for  him  and  rode  back  to  camp  with  him.  Not  a  word 
was  spoken  on  that  ride  by  either  of  us.  After  we  reached  the 
camp  occurred  the  brief  conversation  I  have  quoted  as  to  the  hor 
rors  of  war. 

A  very  remarkable  illustration  of  Jackson's  religious  liberality 
was  shown  just  before  the  battle  of  Chancellorsville.  We  had 
been  ordered  to  send  to  the  rear  all  surplus  baggage,  and — to  illus 
trate  how  rigidly  this  was  done — only  one  tent,  and  that  a  small 
one,  was  allowed  for  the  headquarters  of  the  corps.  It  was  in 
tended  to  make  the  campaign  of  1863  a  very  active  one.  "We 
must  make  this  campaign,"  said  Jackson,  "an  exceedingly  active 
one.  Only  thus  can  a  weaker  country  cope  with  a  stronger.  It 


Stonewall  Jackson. 

must  make  up  in  activity  what  it  lacks  in  strength,  and  a  defen 
sive  campaign  can  only  be  made  successful  by  taking  the  aggres 
sive  at  the  proper  time.  Don't  wait  for  the  adversary  to  become 
fully  prepared,  but  strike  him  the  first  blow."  When  all  the 
tents,  among  other  surplus  baggage,  were  taken  away,  a  Eoman 
€atholic  priest,  of  one  of  the  Louisiana  regiments,  sent  in  his 
resignation  because  he  could  not  perform  the  duties  of  his  office 
without  the  privacy  of  a  tent.  Jackson  asked  me  about  Father 

.     I  told  him  he  was  one  of  the  most  useful  men  in  time 

of  battle  that  we  had;  that  I  would  miss  his  services  very  much. 
He  ordered  that  this  Eoman  Catholic  priest  should  retain  his 
tent,  and  he  was  the  only  man  in  the  corps  who  had  that  privi- 


We  now  approach  the  close  of  Jackson's  career.  Wonderful 
career !  Wonderful  in  many  respects,  and  to  some  minds  more 
wonderful  in  that  it  took  him  only  two  years  to  make  his  place  in 
history.  Caesar  spent  eight  years  in  his  first  series  of  victories,  and 
some  two  years  more  in  filling  out  the  measure  of  his  great  repu 
tation.  Napoleon,  teaching  the  lesson  of  indifference  to  danger 
to  the  boys  he  gathered  around  him  after  the  fatal  Eussian  cam 
paign,  said,  "  The  cannon  balls  have  been  flying  around  our  legs 
for  twenty  years."  Hannibal's  career  occupied  about  fifteen 
years.  No  other  great  commander  in  the  world's  history  has 
in  so  short  a  time  won  so  great  a  fame  as  Jackson.  Two  years, 
crowded  with  weighty  deeds,  now  drawn  to  a  close,  and  Chancel- 
lorsville  witnesses,  perhaps,  the  most  important  single  incident  of 
his  life  as  a  soldier.  The  whole  story  has  been  too  often  told. 
Hooker,  in  command  of  what  was  called  by  the  North  "  the  finest 
army  on  the  planet,"  crossed  the  Eappahannock  and  marched  to 
Chancellorsville.  He  had  123,000  soldiers;  Lee  less  than  58,000. 
Notwithstanding  this  Hooker  was  frightened  by  his  own  temerity  in 
coming  within  striking  distance  of  Lee  and  Jackson,  and  he  at  once 
set  his  whole  army  to  work  to  throw  up  intrenchments  and  make 
abaitis  of  the  most  formidable  character.  Lee  and  Jackson  had 
to  meet  the  present  difficulty  without  the  aid  of  a  large  portion 


Stonewall  Jackson.  213 

of  their  army,  which  was  absent  with  Longsteet.  Lee  and  Jackson  ! 
How  well  I  remember  their  meeting  before  this  battle  and  their 
confiding  conference !  How  these  two  men  loved  and  trusted  each 
other !  Where  in  all  history  shall  we  find  a  parallel  to  their 
mutual  faith  and  love  and  confidence?  I  can  find  none.  Said 
Jackson,  "  Lee  is  a  phenomenon.  I  would  follow  him  blind-fold." 
And  Lee  said  to  an  aide-de-camp  of  Jackson's,  who  reported  that 
Hooker  had  crossed  the  river,  "  Go  back  and  tell  General  Jack 
son  that  he  knows  as  well  as  I  what  to  do."  After  they  arrived 
in  front  of  Hooker  our  movements  are  described  in  a  hitherto 
unpublished  letter  of  General  Lee's.  That  great  commander, 
after  saying  that  he  decided  not  to  attack  in  front,  writes  as  fol 
lows  :  "  I  stated  to  General  Jackson,  we  must  attack  on  our  left 
as  soon  as  practicable,"  and  he  adds,  "  In  consequence  of  a  report 
from  General  Fitz.  Lee,  describing  the  position  of  the  Federal 
army,  and  the  roads  which  he  held  with  his  cavalry  leading  to  its 
rear,  General  Jackson — after  some  inquiry  concerning  the  roads 
leading  to  the  Furnace — undertook  to  throw  his  command  en 
tirely  in  Hooker's  rear,  which  he  accomplished  with  equal  skill 
and  boldness."  General  Jackson  believed  the  fighting  qualities 
of  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia  equal  to  the  task  of  ending  the 
war.  During  the  winter  preceding  Chancellorsville,  in  the  course 
of  a  conversation  at  Moss  Neck,  he  said :  "  We  must  do  more  than 
defeat  their  armies;  we  must  destroy  them."  He  went  into  this 
campaign  filled  with  this  stern  purpose;  ready  to  stretch  to  the 
utmost  every  energy  of  his  genius  and  push  to  its  limit  all  his 
faith  in  his  men  in  order  to  destroy  a  great  army  of  the  enemy. 
I  know  this  was  his  purpose,  for  after  the  battle,  when  still 
well  enough  to  talk,  he  told  me  that  he  had  intended,  after  break 
ing  into  Hooker's  rear,  to  take  and  fortify  a  suitable  positon, 
cutting  him  off  from  the  river  and  so  hold  him,  until,  between 
himself  and  General  Lee,  the  great  Federal  host  should  be  broken 
to  pieces.  He  had  no  fear.  It  was  then  that  I  heard  him  say, 
"  We  sometimes  fail  to  drive  them  from  position ;  they  always 
fail  to  drive  us." 


214:  Stonewall  Jackson. 

Never  can  I  forget  the  eagerness  and  intensity  of  Jackson  on 
that  march  to  Hooker's  rear.  His  face  was  pale,  his  eyes  were  flash 
ing.  Out  from  his  thin  compressed  lips  came  the  terse  command : 
"  Press  forward,  press  forward."  In  his  eagerness,  as  he  rode 
he  leaned  over  on  the  neck  of  his  horse  as  if  in  that  way  the  march 
might  be  hurried.  "  See  that  the  column  is  kept  closed  and  that 
there  is  no  straggling,"  he  more  than  once  ordered — and  "  Press 
on,  press  on"  was  repeated  again  and  again.  Every  man  in  the 
ranks  knew  that  we  were  engaged  in  some  great  flank  movement, 
and  they  eagerly  responded,  and  pressed  on  at  a  rapid  gait.  Fitz. 
Lee  met  us  and  told  Jackson  he  could  show  him  the  whole 
of  Hooker's  army  if  he  went  with  him  to  the  top  of  a  hill  near  by. 
They  went  together,  and  Jackson  carefully  inspected  through  his 
glasses  the  Federal  command.  He  was  so  wrapped  up  in  his  plans 
that  on  his  return  he  passed  Fitz.  Lee  without  saluting  or  thank 
ing  him,  and  when  he  reached  the  column  he  ordered  one  aide  to 
go  forward  and  tell  General  Rodes,  who  was  in  the  lead,  to  cross 
the  Plank  road,  and  go  straight  on  to  the  turnpike,  and  another 
aide  to  go  to  the  rear  of  the  column  and  see  that  it  was  kept 
closed  up,  and  all  along  the  line  he  repeatedly  said  "  Press  on, 
press  right  on."  The  fiercest  energy  possessed  the  man,  and  the 
fire  of  battle  fell  strong  upon  him.  When  he  arrived  at  the  Plank 
road  he  sent  this,  his  last  message,  to  Lee :  "  The  enemy  has 
made  a  stand  at  Chancellorsville.  I  hope  as  soon  as  practicable 
to  attack.  I  trust  that  an  ever  kind  Providence  will  bless  us 
with  success."  And  as  this  message  went  to  Lee,  there  was  flash 
ing  along  the  wires — giving  brief  joy  to  the  Federal  Capital — 
Hooker's  message :  {<  The  enemy  must  either  ingloriously  fly,  or 
come  out  from  behind  his  defences  and  give  us  battle  on  our 
own  ground,  where  certain  destruction  awaits  him." 

Contrast  the  two.  Jackson's — modest,  confident,  hopeful — re 
lying  on  his  cause  and  his  God.  Hooker's — frightened,  boastful, 
arrogant,  vainglorious.  The  two  messages  are  characteristic  of 
the  two  men  and  of  the  two  people. 

But  this  battle  has  been  so  often  described  in  its  minutest  de 
tail  I  forbear  to  tax  your  patience.  I  forbear  for  another  reason. 


Stonewall  Jackson.  215 

While  I  can  write  about  it,  I  cannot  speak  of  it  to  old  soldiers 
without  more  emotion  than  I  wish  to  show.  The  result  of  that 
great  battle  the  world  knows.  Except  for  the  unsurpassed — the 
wonderful  campaign  of  1864 — this  is  perhaps  the  finest  illustra 
tion  of  General  Lee's  genius  for  war,  and  yet,  in  writing  to  Jack 
son  he  says:  "I  have  just  received  your  note,  informing  me  that 
you  were  wounded.  I  cannot  express  my  regret  at  its  occurrence. 
Could  I  have  directed  events,  I  would  have  chosen,  for  the  good 
of  the  country,  to  have  been  disabled  in  your  stead,  I  congratulate 
you  on  the  victory,  which  is  due  to  your  skill  and  energy." 

See  the  noble  spirit  of  our  great  commander !  Not  further  re 
moved  is  pole  from  pole  than  was  any  mean  jealousy  or  thought  of 
self  in  his  great  soul.  He  obeyed  the  hard  command  that 
"  In  honor  ye  prefer  one  another."  This  note  displays  his  great 
ness,  yet  it  is  also  history,  in  that  we  know,  on  his  testimony,  that 
Jackson  shared  with  him  the  glory  of  that  battle.  These  great 
soldiers  loved  and  trusted  one  another,  and  in  death  they  are  not 
divided.  How  sacred  is  the  soil  of  Lexington !  for  here  they  rest 
side  by  side. 

I  have  already  told  the  story  of  Jackson's  death;  it  is  so  famil 
iar  to  you  all,  that,  though  intimately  associated  with  its  scenes, 
I  will  not  narrate  it  again.  I  will  only  declare  that  he  met  this 
great  enemy  as  he  had  met  all  others,  calmly  and  steadily,  expect 
ing  as  always  to  conquer,  but  now  trusting,  not  in  his  own  strength 
— not  as  heretofore  in  the  prowess  of  mortal  arms,  nor  in  the 
splendid  fibre  of  mortal  courage,  but  in  the  unseen  strength  upon 
which  he  had  always  relied — the  strength  that  never  failed  him — 
and  so,  foreseeing  the  rest  that  awaited  him  on  the  other  side,  he 
crossed  over  the  river.  "  My  hand  is  on  my  mouth,  and  my  mouth 
is  in  the  dust." 

Already  I  have  told  you  much  that  you  already  knew.  In  this 
I  beg  you  to  observe  I  have  but  fulfilled  my  promise.  My  apology 
is  that  my  thoughts  are  in  Lexington,  and  that  I  stand  by  the 
grave  of  Jackson.  Under  such  circumstances  love  does  not  seek 
new  stories  to  tell,  new  incidents  to  relate.  Just  to  its  own  heart 


216  Stonewall  Jackson. 

or  to  some  sympathizing  ear,  it  goes  over  the  old  scenes,  recalls 
the  old  memories,  tenderly  dwells  upon  and  tells  them  over  and 
over  again,  says  farewell,  and  comes  back  again  and  stands  silent 
in  the  presence  of  the  dead,  and  so  I  finish  what  I  had  to  say  and 
bid  farewell  to  Stonewall  Jackson.  And  yet,  all  is  not  said,  for 
even  in  the  presence  of  his  mighty  shade,  our  hearts  bow  down 
and  we  are  awed  by  another  presence,  for  the  towering  form  be 
side  him  is  that  of  Robert  Lee.  Thought  and  feeling  and  power 
of  expression  are  paralyzed.  I  cannot  help  you  now  with  words 
to  tell  all  that  is  in  your  hearts. 

Time  fails,  and  I  trust  to  your  memories  to  recall  a  group  more 
familiar,  in  whose  presence  perhaps  we  would  not  be  so  oppressed, 
and  yet  a  list  of  names  that  ought  to  be  dear  to  every  Confederate. 
I  think  that  in  the  wide,  wide  world,  no  country  of  equal  size 
has  had  so  long  a  list  of  glorious  dead — so  many  around  whose 
memories  a  halo  of  glory  gathers.  Reverently  I  salute  them  all. 

And  so  I  leave  the  grave  of  my  General  and  my  friend,  know 
ing  that  for  centuries  men  will  come  to  Lexington  as  to  a  Mecca, 
and  to  this  grave  as  to  a  shrine,  and  wonderingly  talk  of  this  man 
and  his  mighty  deeds.  I  know  that  time  will  only  add  to  his 
great  fame.  I  know  that  his  name  will  be  honored  and  revered 
forever,  just  as  I  know  that  the  beautiful  river,  flowing  near  by, 
will  sing  an  unceasing  requiem  to  his  memory — just  as  I  know 
that  the  proud  mountains,  like  some  vast  chain  of  sentinels,  will 
keep  eternal  watch  over  his  honored  grave. 


Account  of  the  Wounding  and  Death 
of  Stonewall  Jackson 

By  HUNTER  McGuiRE,  M.  D.,  L.L.  D., 

Medical  Director  Jackson's  Corps,  A.   N.  Va. 

Published  in  the  Richmond  Medical  Journal  May,   1866. 


Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson. 


Supported  upon  either  side  by  his  aids,  Captains  James  Smith 
and  Joseph  Morrison,,  the  General  moved  slowly  and  painfully 
toward  the  rear.  Occasionally  resting  for  a  moment,  to  shake  off 
the  exhaustion  which  pain  and  the  loss  of  blood  produced,  he  at 
last  reached  the  line  of  battle,  where  most  of  the  men  were  lying 
down,  to  escape  the  shell  and  cannister,  with  which  the  Federals 
raked  the  road.  General  Fender  rode  up  here  to  the  little  party, 
and  asked  who  was  wounded,  and  Captain  Smith,  who  had  been 
instructed  by  General  Jackson  to  tell  no  one  of  his  injury,  simply 
answered  "a  Confederate  officer;"  but  Fender  recognized  the  Gen 
eral,  and  springing  from  his  horse,  hurriedly  expressed  his  regret, 
and  added  that  his  lines  were  so  much  broken,  he  feared  it  would 
be  necessary  to  fall  back.  At  this  moment  the  scene  was  a  fearful 
one.  The  air  seemed  to  be  alive  with  the  shrieks  of  shells  and 
the  whistling  of  bullets;  horses,  riderless  and  mad  with  fright, 
dashed  in  every  direction;  hundreds  left  the  ranks  and  fled  to 
the  rear,  and  the  groans  of  the  wounded  and  dying,  mingled  with 
the  wild  shouts  of  others  to  be  led  again  to  the  assault.  Almost 
fainting  as  he  was,  from  loss  of  blood,  fearfully  wounded,  and  as 
he  thought,  dying,  Jackson  was  undismayed  by  this  terrible  scene. 
The  words  of  Fender  seemed  to  rouse  him  to  life.  Pushing  aside 
the  men  who  supported  him,  he  stretched  himself  to  his  full 
height,  and  answered  feebly,  but  distinctly  enough  to  be  heard 
above  the  din  of  the  battle,  "  General  Fender,  you  must  hold  on 
to  the  field,  you  must  hold  out  to  the  last."  It  was  Jackson's 
last  order  upon  the  field  of  battle.  Still  more  exhausted  by  this 
effort,  he  asked  to  be  permitted  to  lie  down  for  a  few  moments, 
but  the  danger  from  the  fire,  and  capture  by  the  Federal  ad 
vance,  was  too  imminent,  and  his  aids,  hurried  him  on.  A  litter 
having  been  obtained,  he  was  placed  upon  it,  and  the  bearers 
passed  on  as  rapidly  as  the  thick  woods  and  rough  ground  per- 

[219] 


220  Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson. 

mitted.  Unfortunately,  one  of  the  bearers  was  struck  down,  and 
the  litter  having  been  supported  at  each  of  the  four  corners  by 
a  man,  fell  and  threw  the  General  to  the  ground.  The  fall  was 
a  serious  one,  and  as  he  touched  the  earth,  he  gave,  for  the  first 
time,  expression  to  his  suffering,  and  groaned  piteously. 

Captain  Smith  sprang  to  his  side,  and  as  he  raised  his  head,  a 
bright  beam  of  moonlight,  made  its  way  through  the  thick  foliage 
and  rested  upon  the  pale  face  of  the  sufferer.     The  Captain  was 
startled  by  its  great  pallor  and  stillness,  and  cried  out,  "  Oh !  Gen 
eral,  are  you  seriously  hurt  ?  "     "  No,"  he  answered,  "  don't  trouble 
yourself,  my  friend,  about  me/7   and  presently  added  something 
about  winning  the  battle  first,  and  attending  to  the  wounded  after 
wards.     He  was  placed  upon  the  litter  again,  and  carried  a  few 
hundred  yards,  when  I  met  him  with  an  ambulance.     I  knelt 
down  by  him,  and  said,  "  I  hope  you  are  not  badly  hurt,  General." 
He  replied  very  calmly,  but  feebly,  ''  I  am  badly  injured,  Doctor; 
I  fear  I  am  dying."     After  a  pause,  he  continued,  "  I  am  glad  you 
have  come."     I  think  the  wound  in  my  shoulder  is  still  bleed 
ing.     His  clothes  were  saturated  with  blood,  and  hemorrhage  was 
still  going  on  from  the  wound.     Compression  of  the  artery  with  the 
finger  arrested  it,  until  lights  being  procured  from  the  ambulance, 
the  handkerchief  which  had  slipped  a  little,  was  readjusted.     His 
calmness  amid  the  dangers  which  surrounded  him,  and  at  the 
supposed  presence   of  death,   and  his  uniform  politeness,  which 
did  not  forsake  him,  even  under  these,  the  most  trying  circum 
stances,   were   remarkable.     His   complete   control,   too,    over  his 
mind,  enfeebled  as  it  was  by  loss  of  blood,  pain,  &c.,  was  won 
derful.     His  suffering  at  this  time  was  intense;  his  hands  were 
cold,  his  skin  clammy,  his  face  pale,  and  his  lips  compressed  and 
bloodless;  not  a  groan  escaped  him — not  a  sign  of  suffering,  ex 
cept  the  slight  corrugation  of  his  brow,  the  fixed,  rigid  face,  and 
the  thin  lips  so  tightly  compressed  that  the  impression  of  the 
teeth  could  be  seen  through  them.     Except  these,  he  controlled, 
by  his  iron  will,  all  evidence  of  emotion,  and  more  difficult  than 
this   even,   he   controlled   that    disposition   to   restlessness   which 


Wounding  and  Death  of  Jaclcson.  221 

many  of  us  have  observed  upon  the  field  of  battle,  attending  great 
loss  of  blood.  Some  whiskey  and  morphia  were  procured  from 
Dr.  Straith,  and  administered  to  him,  and  placing  him  in  the 
ambulance,  it  was  started  for  the  Corps  Field  Infirmary,  at  the 
Wilderness  Tavern.  Col.  Crutchfield,  his  Chief  of  Artillery,  was 
also  in  the  ambulance.  He  had  been  wounded  very  seriously  in 
the  leg,  and  was  suffering  intensely. 

The  General  expressed,  very  feelingly,  his  sympathy  for  Crutch- 
field,  and  once,  when  the  latter  groaned  aloud,  he  directed  the 
ambulance  to  stop,  and  requested  me  to  see  if  something  could 
not  be  done  for  his  relief.  Torches  had  been  provided,  and  every 
means  taken  to  carry  them  to  the  hospital,  as  safely  and  easily  as 
possible.  I  sat  in  the  front  part  of  the  ambulance,  with  my  finger 
resting  upon  the  artery,  above  the  wound,  to  arrest  bleeding  if 
it  should  occur.  When  I  was  recognized  by  acquaintances,  and 
asked  who  was  wounded,  the  General  would  tell  me  to  say,  "  a  Con 
federate  officer."  At  one  time,  he  put  his  right  hand  upon  my 
head,  and  pulling  me  down  to  him,  asked  "if  Crutchfield  was  dan 
gerously  wounded  ?"  When  I.  answered  "  No,  only  painfully  hurt," 
he  replied,  "  I  am  glad  it  is  no  worse."  In  a  few  moments  after, 
Crutchfield  did  the  same  thing,  and  when  he  was  told  that  the 
General  was  very  seriously  wounded,  he  groaned  and  cried  out, 
"  0,  my  God !  "  It  was  for  this,  that  the  General  directed  the 
ambulance  to  be  halted,  and  requested  that  something  should  be 
done  for  Crutchfield's  relief. 

After  reaching  the  hospital,  he  was  placed  in  bed,  covered  with 
blankets,  and  another  drink  of  whiskey  and  water  given  him.  Two 
hours  and  a  half  elapsed  before  sufficient  reaction  took  place,  to 
warrant  an  examination.  At  two  o'clock  Sunday  morning  Sur 
geons  Black,  Walls  and  Coleman  being  present,  I  informed  him 
that  chloroform  would  be  given  him,  and  his  wounds  examined. 
I  told  him  that  amputation  would  probably  be  required,  and  asked 
if  it  was  found  necessary,  whether  it  should  be  done  at  once.  He 
replied  promptly,  "Yes,  certainly;  Doctor  McGuire,  do  for  me 
whatever  you  think  best."  Chloroform  was  then  administered, 


222  Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson. 

and  as  he  began  to  feel  its  effects,  and  its  relief  to  the  pain  he 
was  suffering,  he  exclaimed,  "What  an  infinite  blessing,"  and 
continued  to  repeat  the  word  "  blessing,"  until  he  became  insensi 
ble.  The  round  ball,  (such  as  is  used  for  the  smooth-bore  Spring 
field  musket)  which  had  lodged  under  the  skin,  upon  the  back  of 
his  right  hand  was  extracted  first.  It  had  entered  the  palm,  about 
the  middle  of  the  hand,  and  had  fractured  two  of  the  bones.  The 
left  arm  was  then  amputated,  about  two  inches  below  the  shoul 
der,  very  rapidly,  and  with  slight  loss  of  blood,  the  ordinary  cir 
cular  operation  having  been  made.  There  were  two  wounds  in 
this  arm,  the  first  and  most  serious  was  about  three  inches  below 
the  shoulder-joint,  the  ball  dividing  the  main  artery,  and  fractur 
ing  the  bone.  The  second  was  several  inches  in  length;  a  ball 
having  entered  the  outside  of  the  forearm,  an  inch  below  the 
elbow,  came  out  upon  the  opposite  side,  just  above  the  wrist. 
Throughout  the  whole  of  the  operation,  and  until  all  the  dressings 
were  applied,  he  continued  insensible.  Two  or  three  slight  wounds 
of  the  skin  on  his  face,  received  from  the  branches  of  trees,  when 
his  horse  dashed  through  the  woods,  were  dressed  simply  with 
isinglass  plaster.  About  half  past  three  o'clock  Colonel  (then 
Major)  Pendleton,  the  Assistant  Adjutant  General,  arrived  at 
the  hospital,  and  asked  to  see  the  General.  He  stated  that  Gen. 
Hill  had  been  wounded,  and  that  the  troops  were  in  great  dis 
order.  General  Stuart  was  in  command,  and  had  sent  him  to  see 
the  General.  At  first,  I  declined  to  permit  an  interview,  but  the 
Colonel  urged  that  the  safety  of  the  army  and  success  of  the  cause 
depended  upon  his  seeing  him.  When  he  entered  the  tent  the 
General  said,  (t  Well,  Major,  I  am  glad  to  see  you ;  I  thought  you 
were  killed."  Pendleton  briefly  explained  the  condition  of  affairs, 
gave  Stuart's  message,  and  asked  what  should  be  done.  General 
Jackson  was  at  once  interested,  and  asked  in  his  quick  rapid  way, 
several  questions.  When  they  were  answered,  he  remained  silent 
a  moment,  evidently  trying  to  think;  contracted  his  brow,  set 
his  mouth,  and  for  some  moments  was  obviously  endeavoring 
to  concentrate  his  thoughts.  For  a  moment  it  was  believed  he 


Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson.  223 

had  succeeded,  for  his  nostrils  dilated,,  and  his  eyes  flashed  its  old 
fire,  but  it  was  only  for  a  moment;  his  face  relaxed  again,  and 
presently  he  answered  very  feebly  and  sadly,  "I  don't  know — I 
can't  tell ;  say  to  General  Stuart  he  must  do  what  he  thinks  best." 
Soon  after  this,  he  slept  for  several  hours,  and  seemed  to  be  doing 
well.  The  next  morning  he  was  free  from  pain,  and  expressed  him 
self  sanguine  of  recovery.  He  sent  his  aid-de-camp,  Morrison,  to 
inform  his  wife  of  his  injuries,  and  to  bring  her  at  once  to  see 
him.  The  following  note  from  General  Lee,  was  read  to  him  that 
morning  by  Captain  Smith :  "  I  have  just  received  your  note, 
informing  me  that  you  were  wounded.  I  cannot  express  my  regret 
at  the  occurrence.  Could  I  have  directed  events,  I  should  have 
chosen,  for  the  good  of  the  country,  to  have  been  disabled  in  your 
stead.  I  congratulate  you  upon  the  victory  which  is  due  to  your 
skill  and  energy."  He  replied,  "  General  Lee  should  give  the  praise 
to  God."  About  ten  o'clock  his  right  side  began  to  pain  him 
so  much  that  he  asked  me  to  examine  it.  He  said  he  had  in 
jured  it  in  falling  from  the  litter  the  night  before,  and  believed 
that  he  had  struck  it  against  a  stone  or  the  stump  of  a  sapling. 
No  evidence  of  injury  could  be  discovered  by  examination;  the 
skin  was  not  broken  or  bruised,  and  the  lung  performed,  as  far 
as  I  could  tell,  its  proper  functions.  Some  simple  application 
was  recommended,  in  the  belief  that  the  pain  would  soon  dis 
appear. 

At  this  time  the  battle  was  raging  fearfully,  and  the  sound  of 
the  cannon  and  musketry  could  be  distinctly  heard  at  the  hos 
pital.  The  General's  attention  was  attracted  to  it  from  the  first, 
and  when  the  noise  was  at  its  height,  and  indicated  how  fiercely 
the  conflict  was  being  carried  on,  he  directed  all  of  his  attend 
ants,  except  Captain  Smith,  to  return  to  the  battlefield,  and  attend 
to  their  different  duties.  By  eight  o'clock,  Sunday  night,  the  pain 
in  his  side  had  disappeared,  and  in  all  respects  he  seemed  to  be 
doing  well.  He  inquired  minutely  about  the  battle,  and  the  dif 
ferent  troops  engaged,  and  his  face  would  light  up  with  enthusiasm 
and  interest  when  told  how  this  brigade  acted,  or  that  officer  dis- 


224:  Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson. 

played  conspicuous  courage,  and  his  head  gave  the  peculiar  shake 
from  side  to  side,  and  he  uttered  his  usual  "  Good,  good,"  with 
unwonted  energy  when  the  gallant  behavior  of  the  "  Stonewall  Bri 
gade"  was  alluded  to.  He  said,  "The  men  of  that  brigade  will 
be,  some  day,  proud  to  say  to  their  children,  '  I  was  one  of  the 
Stonewall  Brigade/  ':  He  disclaimed  any  right  of  his  own  to  the 
name  Stonewall.  "It  belongs  to  the  brigade  and  not  to  me." 

This  night  he  slept  well,  and  was  free  from  pain.  A  message 
was  received  from  General  Lee  the  next  morning,  directing  me  to 
remove  the  General  to  Guinea's  Station,  as  soon  as  his  condition 
would  justify  it,  as  there  was  some  danger  of  capture  by  the  Fed 
erals,  who  were  threatening  to  cross  at  Ely's  Ford.  In  the  mean 
time,  to  protect  the  hospital,  some  troops  were  sent  to  this  point. 
The  General  objected  to  being  moved,  if,  in  my  opinion,  it  would 
do  him  any  injury.  He  said  he  had  no  objection  to  staying  in  a 
tent,  and  would  prefer  it,  if  his  wife,  when  she  came,  could  find 
lodging  in  a  neighboring  house,  <e  And  if  the  enemy  does  come," 
he  added,  "  I  am  not  afraid  of  them ;  I  have  always  been  kind  to 
their  wounded,  and  I  am  sure  they  will  be  kind  to  me."  General 
Lee  sent  word  again  late  that  evening  that  he  must  be  moved  if 
possible,  and  preparations  were  made  to  leave  the  next  morning. 
I  was  directed  to  accompany,  and  remain  with  him,  and  my  duties 
with  the  corps,  as  Medical  director,  were  turned  over  to  the  Sur 
geon  next  in  rank.  General  Jackson  had  previously  declined  to 
permit  me  to  go  with  him  to  Guinea's,  because  complaints  had 
been  so  frequently  made  of  General  officers,  when  wounded,  car 
rying  off  with  them  the  surgeons  belonging  to  their  commands. 
When  informed  of  this  order  of  the  Commanding  General,  he  said, 
"  General  Lee  has  always  been  very  kind  to  me,  and  I  thank  him." 
Very  early  Tuesday  morning  he  was  placed  in  an  ambulance  and 
started  for  Guinea's  Station,  and  about  eight  o'clock  that  even 
ing  he  arrived  at  the  Chandler  House,  where  he  remained  till  he 
died.  Captain  Hotchkiss,  with  a  party  of  engineers,  was  sent  in 
front  to  clear  the  road  of  wood,  stone,  etc.,  and  to  order  the 
wagons  out  of  the  track  to  let  the  ambulance  pass.  The  rough 


Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson.  225 

teamsters  sometimes  refused  to  move  their  loaded  wagons  out  of 
the  way  for  an  ambulance,,  until  told  that  it  contained  Jackson, 
and  then,  with  all  possible  speed,  they  gave  the  way,  and  stood 
with  hats  off,  and  weeping,  as  he  went  by.  At  Spotsylvania  C.  H., 
and  along  the  whole  route,  men  and  women  rushed  to  the  ambu 
lance,  bringing  all  the  poor  delicacies  they  had,  and  with  tearful 
eyes  they  blessed  him,  and  prayed  for  his  recovery.  He  bore  the 
journey  well,  and  was  cheerful  throughout  the  day.  He  talked 
freely  about  the  late  battle,  and  among  other  things,  said  that  he 
had  intended  to  endeavor  to  cut  the  Federals  off  from  the  United 
States  Ford,  and  taking  a  position  between  them  and  the  river, 
oblige  them  to  attack  him ;  and  he  added,  with  a  smile,  "  My  men 
sometimes  fail  to  drive  the  enemy  from  a  position,  but  they  always 
fail  to  drive  us  away."  He  spoke  of  Eodes,  and  alluded  in  high 
terms  to  his  magnificent  behavior  on  the  field  Saturday  evening. 
He  hoped  he  would  be  promoted.  He  thought  promotions  for 
gallantry  should  be  made  at  once,  upon  the  field,  and  not  delayed; 
made  very  early,  or  upon  the  field,  they  would  be  the  greatest  in 
centives  to  gallantry  in  others.  He  spoke  of  Colonel  Willis,*  who 
commanded  the  skirmishers  of  Eodes'  Division,  and  praised  him 
very  highly,  and  referred  to  the  death  of  Paxton  and  Boswell  very 
feelingly.  He  alluded  to  them  as  officers  of  great  merit  and  prom 
ise.  The  day  was  quite  warm,  and  at  one  time  he  suffered  with 
slight  nausea.  At  his  suggestion,  I  placed  over  his  stomach  a  wet 
towel,  and  he  expressed  great  relief  from  it.  After  he  arrived  at 
Chandler's  house,  he  ate  some  bread  and  tea  with  evident  relish, 
and  slept  well  throughout  the  entire  night.  Wednesday  he  was 
thought  to  be  doing  remarkably  well.  He  ate  heartily,  for  one 
in  his  condition,  and  was  uniformly  cheerful. 

I  found  his  wounds  to  be  doing  very  well  to-day.  Union  by  the 
first  intention,  had  taken  place,  to  some  extent,  in  the  stump, 
and  the  rest  of  the  surface  of  the  wound  exposed,  was  covered 
with  healthy  granulations.  The  wound  in  his  hand  gave  him  little 
pain,  and  the  discharge  was  healthy.  Simple  lime  and  water  dress- 


*Subsequently  killed  in  battle. 
15 


226  Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson. 

ings  were  used  both  for  the  stump  and  hand,  and  upon  the  palm 
of  the  latter,  a  light,  short  splint  was  applied,  to  assist  in  keeping 
at  rest  the  fragments  of  the  second  and  third  metacarpal  bones. 
He  expressed  great  satisfaction  when  told  that  the  wounds  were 
healing,  and  asked  if  I  could  tell  from  their  appearance,  how  long 
he  would  probably  be  kept  from  the  field?  Conversing  with  Capt. 
Smith,  a  few  moments  afterwards,  he  alluded  to  his  injuries,  and 
said,  "  Many  would  regard  them  as  a  great  misfortune,  I  regard 
them  as  one  of  the  blessings  of  my  life."  Captain  S.  replied,  "All 
things  work  together  for  good  to  those  that  love  God."  "  Yes," 
he  answered,  "that's  it,  that's  it." 

At  my  request,  Dr.  Morrison  came  to-day,  and  remained  with 
him. 

About  one  o'clock  Thursday  morning,  while  I  was  asleep  upon 
a  lounge  in  his  room,  he  directed  his  servant,  Jim,  to  apply  a  wet 
towel  to  his  stomach,  to  relieve  an  attack  of  nausea,  with  which  he 
was  again  troubled.  The  servant  asked  permission  to  first  con 
sult  me,  but  the  General  knowing  that  I  had  slept  none  for  nearly 
three  nights,  refused  to  allow  the  servant  to  disturb  me,  and  de 
manded  the  towel.  About  daylight  I  was  aroused,  and  found  him 
suffering  great  pain.  An  examination  disclosed  pleuro-pneumonia 
of  the  right  side.  I  believed,  and  the  consulting  physicians  con 
curred  in  the  opinion,  that  it  was  attributable  to  the  fall  from  the 
litter,  the  night  he  was  wounded.  The  General,  himself,  referred 
it  to  this  accident.  I  think  the  disease  came  on  too  soon  after 
the  application  of  the  wet  cloths,  to  admit  of  the  supposition,  once 
believed,  that  it  wns  Educed  by  them.  The  nausea,  for  which  the 
cloths  were  applied  that  night,  may  have  been  the  result  of  in 
flammation  already  begun.  Contusion  of  the  lung,  with  extrava 
sation  of  blood  in  his  chest,  was  probably  produced  by  the  fall  re 
ferred  to,  and  shock  and  loss  of  blood,  prevented  any  ill  effects 
until  reaction  had  been  well  established,  and  then  inflammation 
ensued.  Cups  were  applied,  and  mercury,  with  antimony  and 
opium  administered.*  Towards  the  evening  he  became  better, 

*A  detailed  account  of  the  treatment  is  prevented  by  the  loss  of 
notes  kept  of  the  case.  These  notes,  with  other  papers,  were  captured 
by  the  Federals,  March,  1865. 


Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson.  227 

and  hopes  were  again  entertained  of  his  recovery.  Mrs.  Jackson 
arrived  to-day,  and  nursed  him  faithfully  to  the  end.  She  was  a 
devoted  wife,  and  earnest  Christian,  and  endeared  us  all  to  her 
by  her  great  kindness  and  gentleness.  The  General's  joy  at  the 
presence  of  his  wife  and  child  was  very  great,  and  for  him  unusu 
ally  demonstrative.  Noticing  the  sadness  of  his  wife,  he  said  to 
her  tenderly,  "I  know  you  would  gladly  give  your  life  for  me, 
but  I  am  perfectly  resigned.  Do  not  be  sad;  I  hope  I  may  yet  re 
cover.  Pray  for  me,  but  always  remember  in  your  prayers  to  use 
the  petition,  "Thy  will  be  done/  y:  Friday  his  wounds  were  again 
dressed,  and  although  the  quantity  of  the  discharge  from  them, 
had  diminished,  the  process  of  healing  was  still  going  on.  The  pain 
in  his  side  had  disappeared,  but  he  breathed  with  difficulty  and 
complained  of  a  feeling  of  great  exhaustion.  When  Dr.  Breckin- 
ridge  (who  with  Dr.  Smith,  had  been  sent  for  in  consultation) 
said  he  hoped  that  a  blister,  which  had  been  applied,  would  afford 
him  relief,  he  expressed  his  own  confidence  in  it,  and  in  his  final 
recovery. 

Dr.  Tucker,  from  Eichmond,  arrived  on  Saturday,  and  all  that 
human  skill  could  devise  was  done,  to  stay  the  hand  of  death.  He 
suffered  no  pain  to-day,  and  his  breathing  was  less  difficult,  but 
he  was  evidently  hourly  growing  weaker. 

When  his  child  was  brought  to  him,  to-day,  he  played  with  it 
for  some  time;  frequently  caressing  it,  and  calling  it  his  "little 
comforter."  At  one  time,  he  raised  his  wounded  hand  above  its 
head,  and  closing  his  eyes,  was  for  some  moments,  silently  en 
gaged  in  prayer.  He  said  to  me,  "  I  see  from  the  number  of  phy 
sicians  that  you  think  my  condition  dangerous,  but  I  thank  God, 
if  it  is  His  will,  that  I  am  ready  to  go."  About  daylight,  on 
Sunday  morning,  Mrs.  Jackson  informed  him  that  his  recovery 
was  very  doubtful,  and  that  it  was  better  that  he  should  be  pre 
pared  for  the  worst.  He  was  silent  for  a  moment,  and  then  said : 
t:  It  will  be  infinite  gain  to  be  translated  to  Heaven."  He  ad- 
nsed  his  wife,  in  the  event  of  his  death,  to  return  to  her  father's 
Aouse,  and  added,  "  You  have  a  kind  and  good  father,  but  there 


228  Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson. 

is  no  one  so  kind  and  good  as  your  Heavenly  Father."  He  still 
expressed  a  hope  of  his  recovery,  but  requested  her,  if  he  should 
die,  to  have  him  buried  in  Lexington,  in  the  Valley  of  Virginia. 
His  exhaustion  increased  so  rapidly,  that  at  eleven  o'clock,  Mrs. 
Jackson  knelt  by  his  bed,  and  told  him  that  before  the  sun  went 
down,  he  would  be  with  his  Saviour.  He  replied,  "Oh,  no !  you 
are  frightened,  my  child ;  death  is  not  so  near ;  I  may  yet  get  well." 
She  fell  over  upon  the  bed,  weeping  bitterly,  and  told  him  again 
that  the  physicians  said  there  was  no  hope.  After  a  moment's 
pause  he  asked  her  to  call  me.  "  Doctor,  Anna  informs  me  that 
you  have  told  her  that  I  am  to  die  to-day ;  is  it  so  ?  "  When  he 
was  answered,  he  turned  his  eyes  towards  the  ceiling,  and  gazed 
for  a  moment  or  two,  as  if  in  intense  thought,  then  replied,  "Very 
good,  very  good,  it  is  all  right."  He  then  tried  to  comfort  his 
almost  heart-broken  wife,  and  told  her  he  had  a  good  deal  to  say 
to  her,  but  he  was  too  weak.  Colonel  Pendleton  came  into  the 
room  about  one  o'clock,  and  he  asked  him,  ''  Who  was  preaching 
at  headquarters  to-day  ?  "  When  told  that  the  whole  army  was 
praying  for  him,  he  replied,  "  Thank  God — they  are  very  kind." 
He  said:  "It  is  the  Lord's  Day;  my  wish  is  fulfilled.  I  have 
always  desired  to  die  on  Sunday." 

His  mind  now  began  to  fail  and  wander,  and  he  frequently 
talked  as  if  in  command  upon  the  field,  giving  orders  in  his  old 
way;  then  the  scene  shifted,  and  he  was  at  the  mess-table,  in  con 
versation  with  members  of  his  staff ;  now  with  his  wife  and  child ; 
now  at  prayers  with  his  military  family.  Occasional  intervals  of 
return  of  his  mind  would  appear,  and  during  one  of  them,  I  offered 
him  some  brandy  and  water,  but  he  declined  it,  saying,  "It  will 
only  delay  my  departure,  and  do  no  good;  I  want  to  preserve  my 
mind,  if  possible,  to  the  last."  About  half-past  one,  he  was  told 
that  he  had  but  two  hours  to  live,  and  he  answered  again,  feebly. 
but  firmly,  "  Very  good,  it  is  all  right."  A  few  moments  before 
he  died  he  cried  out  in  his  delirium,  "  Order  A.  P.  Hill  to  pre 
pare  for  action !  pass  the  infantry  to  the  front  rapidly !  tell  Major 
Hawks "  -  then  stopped,  leaving  the  sentence  unfinished.  Pres- 


Wounding  and  Death  of  Jackson.  229 

ently,  a  smile  of  ineffable  sweetness  spread  itself  over  his  pale  face, 
and  he  said  quietly,  and  with  an  expression.,  as  if  of  relief,  "  Let 
us  cross  over  the  river,  and  rest  under  the  shade  of  the  trees;" 
and  then,  without  pain,  or  the  least  struggle,  his  spirit  passed 
from  earth  to  the  God  who  gave  it. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


iNTBfjJgifcpV 

.... 

LD  21A-60m-10  '65                               .   .General  Library 
(F7763slO  )  476B                               University  of  California 

YC  51262 


RETURN  TO  DKK 


LOAN  DEPT. 


BORROWED 


, 
(E3494alO)9412A 


.  General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


